Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Electrographic Seizure Characteristics and Electrographic Status Epilepticus Prediction.
Fung, France W; Parikh, Darshana S; Donnelly, Maureen; Xiao, Rui; Topjian, Alexis A; Abend, Nicholas S.
Afiliação
  • Fung FW; Department of Pediatrics (Division of Neurology), Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, U.S.A.
  • Parikh DS; Departments of Neurology and Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, U.S.A.
  • Donnelly M; Department of Pediatrics (Division of Neurology), Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, U.S.A.
  • Xiao R; Department of Neurodiagnostics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, U.S.A.
  • Topjian AA; Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, U.S.A.
  • Abend NS; Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, U.S.A.; and.
J Clin Neurophysiol ; 2024 Jan 09.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38194638
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

We aimed to characterize electrographic seizures (ES) and electrographic status epilepticus (ESE) and determine whether a model predicting ESE exclusively could effectively guide continuous EEG monitoring (CEEG) utilization in critically ill children.

METHODS:

This was a prospective observational study of consecutive critically ill children with encephalopathy who underwent CEEG. We used descriptive statistics to characterize ES and ESE, and we developed a model for ESE prediction.

RESULTS:

ES occurred in 25% of 1,399 subjects. Among subjects with ES, 23% had ESE, including 37% with continuous seizures lasting >30 minutes and 63% with recurrent seizures totaling 30 minutes within a 1-hour epoch. The median onset of ES and ESE occurred 1.8 and 0.18 hours after CEEG initiation, respectively. The optimal model for ESE prediction yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of 0.81. A cutoff selected to emphasize sensitivity (91%) yielded specificity of 56%. Given the 6% ESE incidence, positive predictive value was 11% and negative predictive value was 99%. If the model were applied to our cohort, then 53% of patients would not undergo CEEG and 8% of patients experiencing ESE would not be identified.

CONCLUSIONS:

ESE was common, but most patients with ESE had recurrent brief seizures rather than long individual seizures. A model predicting ESE might only slightly improve CEEG utilization over models aiming to identify patients at risk for ES but would fail to identify some patients with ESE. Models identifying ES might be more advantageous for preventing ES from evolving into ESE.

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article