Electrographic Seizure Characteristics and Electrographic Status Epilepticus Prediction.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-09 DOI:10.1097/WNP.0000000000001068
France W Fung, Darshana S Parikh, Maureen Donnelly, Rui Xiao, Alexis A Topjian, Nicholas S Abend
{"title":"Electrographic Seizure Characteristics and Electrographic Status Epilepticus Prediction.","authors":"France W Fung, Darshana S Parikh, Maureen Donnelly, Rui Xiao, Alexis A Topjian, Nicholas S Abend","doi":"10.1097/WNP.0000000000001068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":15516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology","volume":" ","pages":"64-72"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11231061/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000001068","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

电图癫痫发作特征和电图癫痫状态预测。
目的:我们旨在描述电图癫痫发作(ES)和电图癫痫状态(ESE)的特征,并确定一个专门预测 ESE 的模型能否有效指导危重症儿童使用连续脑电图监测(CEEG):这是一项前瞻性观察研究,研究对象是接受 CEEG 监测的连续重症脑病患儿。我们使用描述性统计来描述 ES 和 ESE 的特征,并建立了 ESE 预测模型:结果:在 1,399 名受试者中,25% 的受试者出现了 ES。在出现 ES 的受试者中,23% 出现了 ESE,其中 37% 的受试者癫痫持续时间超过 30 分钟,63% 的受试者在 1 小时内反复发作,总发作时间超过 30 分钟。ES 和 ESE 的中位发病时间分别为 CEEG 开始后 1.8 小时和 0.18 小时。预测 ESE 的最佳模型的接收者操作特征曲线下面积为 0.81。为强调灵敏度(91%)而选择的临界值产生了 56% 的特异性。鉴于 ESE 发生率为 6%,阳性预测值为 11%,阴性预测值为 99%。如果将该模型应用于我们的队列,那么 53% 的患者将不会接受 CEEG 检查,8% 的 ESE 患者将不会被识别出来:ESE很常见,但大多数ESE患者都有反复的短暂发作,而不是长时间的单独发作。与旨在识别 ES 风险患者的模型相比,预测 ESE 的模型可能只会略微提高 CEEG 的利用率,但却无法识别一些 ESE 患者。识别 ES 的模型可能更有利于防止 ES 演变为 ESE。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology
Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
4.20%
发文量
198
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: ​The Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology features both topical reviews and original research in both central and peripheral neurophysiology, as related to patient evaluation and treatment. Official Journal of the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信