[Effect of neurofeedback training on relative α variant score monitored by bedside continuous electroencephalography and optic nerve sheath diameter evaluated by ultrasound in patients with ischemic hypoxic encephalopathy].

Q3 Medicine
Jie Sun, Jian Wan
{"title":"[Effect of neurofeedback training on relative α variant score monitored by bedside continuous electroencephalography and optic nerve sheath diameter evaluated by ultrasound in patients with ischemic hypoxic encephalopathy].","authors":"Jie Sun, Jian Wan","doi":"10.3760/cma.j.cn121430-20240509-00421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To approach the evaluation of relative α variant score monitored by bedside continuous electroencephalography and optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) evaluated by ultrasound in patients with ischemic hypoxic encephalopathy, and to observe the effect of neurofeedback training on brain function.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective observational study was conducted. The patients admitted to the emergency and intensive care department of Shanghai Pudong New Area People's Hospital from January 2021 to December 2023, who meet the diagnostic criteria of ischemic hypoxic encephalopathy with the Glasgow coma score (GCS) ≤ 8 at admission receiving neurofeedback training were enrolled as the study object (observation group), and the patients without neurofeedback training and GCS score ≤ 8 at admission were enrolled as the controls (control group). Both groups received intravenous neurotrophic therapy combining ganglioside and cerebrolysin for 10 days as one course of treatment. On this basis, the observation group additionally received continuous neurofeedback training including visual feedback, auditory feedback, meditation and relaxation for 14 days. Bedside continuous electroencephalography was used for monitoring relative α variation score, and ultrasound was used to determine ONSD. The average power and slow wave power [expressed as delta-theta ratio (DTR)] of five channels in electroencephalography before and 14 days after neurofeedback training were examined. The differences in peripheral blood neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), Hamilton depression scale (HAMD) score, National Institutes of Health stroke scale (NIHSS) score, plasma levels of 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 60 patients were enrolled in the observation group and 50 patients in the control group finally. There was no significant difference in gender, age or course of disease between the two groups. The ONSD and relative α variant score in the observation group were significantly higher than those in the control group [ONDS (mm): 5.59±0.42 vs. 3.23±0.34, relative α variant score: 2.28±0.39 vs. 0.83±0.28, both P < 0.01]. After neurofeedback training for 14 days, the mean power and DTR in five channels of electroencephalography in the observation group were significantly lower than those before treatment [mean power (μV<sup>2</sup>/Hz): 95.35±3.61 vs. 102.58±4.23 in frontal pole 1 (Fp1), 38.56±4.73 vs. 46.13±2.36 in frontal 3 (F3), 34.33±5.87 vs. 51.71±4.65 in central 3 (C3), 58.37±4.45 vs. 62.95±3.22 in F7, 45.23±2.41 vs. 54.14±2.45 in temporal 3 (T3); DTR (μV<sup>2</sup>/Hz): 75.21±11.34 vs. 84.12±11.35 in ground electrode (GND), 72.31±21.67 vs. 88.23±10.25 in reference electrode (REF), 81.34±8.57 vs. 92.41±8.56 in F4, 71.25±5.42 vs. 87.23±5.64 in parietal 3 (P3), 70.12±5.88 vs. 85.67±6.12 in P4; all P < 0.05]. However, there was no significant difference in the mean power of five channels before and after treatment in the control group. There was no significant difference in the HAMD score or NIHSS score before treatment between the two groups. The above scores at 14 days after treatment were significantly lower than before, and the decrease was more significant in the observation group (HAMD score: 4.59±1.06 vs. 10.69±0.97, NIHSS score: 6.81±0.66 vs. 8.45±0.87, both P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the plasma 5-HT, BDNF or peripheral blood NLR before treatment between the two groups. The above parameters at 14 days after treatment were improved as compared with before, and the levels in the observation group were superior to control group [5-HT (mg/L): 150.25±17.37 vs. 123.34±16.18, BDNF (mg/L): 19.37±2.35 vs. 12.48±2.18, NLR: 4.78±0.83 vs. 5.81±1.17, all P < 0.01].</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both ONDS determined by ultrasound and relative α variation score monitored by electroencephalography changed significantly in the patients with ischemic hypoxic encephalopathy. Neurofeedback training can effectively improve brain function in patients with ischemic hypoxic encephalopathy.</p>","PeriodicalId":24079,"journal":{"name":"Zhonghua wei zhong bing ji jiu yi xue","volume":"37 1","pages":"65-69"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zhonghua wei zhong bing ji jiu yi xue","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn121430-20240509-00421","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To approach the evaluation of relative α variant score monitored by bedside continuous electroencephalography and optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) evaluated by ultrasound in patients with ischemic hypoxic encephalopathy, and to observe the effect of neurofeedback training on brain function.

Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted. The patients admitted to the emergency and intensive care department of Shanghai Pudong New Area People's Hospital from January 2021 to December 2023, who meet the diagnostic criteria of ischemic hypoxic encephalopathy with the Glasgow coma score (GCS) ≤ 8 at admission receiving neurofeedback training were enrolled as the study object (observation group), and the patients without neurofeedback training and GCS score ≤ 8 at admission were enrolled as the controls (control group). Both groups received intravenous neurotrophic therapy combining ganglioside and cerebrolysin for 10 days as one course of treatment. On this basis, the observation group additionally received continuous neurofeedback training including visual feedback, auditory feedback, meditation and relaxation for 14 days. Bedside continuous electroencephalography was used for monitoring relative α variation score, and ultrasound was used to determine ONSD. The average power and slow wave power [expressed as delta-theta ratio (DTR)] of five channels in electroencephalography before and 14 days after neurofeedback training were examined. The differences in peripheral blood neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), Hamilton depression scale (HAMD) score, National Institutes of Health stroke scale (NIHSS) score, plasma levels of 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF).

Results: A total of 60 patients were enrolled in the observation group and 50 patients in the control group finally. There was no significant difference in gender, age or course of disease between the two groups. The ONSD and relative α variant score in the observation group were significantly higher than those in the control group [ONDS (mm): 5.59±0.42 vs. 3.23±0.34, relative α variant score: 2.28±0.39 vs. 0.83±0.28, both P < 0.01]. After neurofeedback training for 14 days, the mean power and DTR in five channels of electroencephalography in the observation group were significantly lower than those before treatment [mean power (μV2/Hz): 95.35±3.61 vs. 102.58±4.23 in frontal pole 1 (Fp1), 38.56±4.73 vs. 46.13±2.36 in frontal 3 (F3), 34.33±5.87 vs. 51.71±4.65 in central 3 (C3), 58.37±4.45 vs. 62.95±3.22 in F7, 45.23±2.41 vs. 54.14±2.45 in temporal 3 (T3); DTR (μV2/Hz): 75.21±11.34 vs. 84.12±11.35 in ground electrode (GND), 72.31±21.67 vs. 88.23±10.25 in reference electrode (REF), 81.34±8.57 vs. 92.41±8.56 in F4, 71.25±5.42 vs. 87.23±5.64 in parietal 3 (P3), 70.12±5.88 vs. 85.67±6.12 in P4; all P < 0.05]. However, there was no significant difference in the mean power of five channels before and after treatment in the control group. There was no significant difference in the HAMD score or NIHSS score before treatment between the two groups. The above scores at 14 days after treatment were significantly lower than before, and the decrease was more significant in the observation group (HAMD score: 4.59±1.06 vs. 10.69±0.97, NIHSS score: 6.81±0.66 vs. 8.45±0.87, both P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the plasma 5-HT, BDNF or peripheral blood NLR before treatment between the two groups. The above parameters at 14 days after treatment were improved as compared with before, and the levels in the observation group were superior to control group [5-HT (mg/L): 150.25±17.37 vs. 123.34±16.18, BDNF (mg/L): 19.37±2.35 vs. 12.48±2.18, NLR: 4.78±0.83 vs. 5.81±1.17, all P < 0.01].

Conclusions: Both ONDS determined by ultrasound and relative α variation score monitored by electroencephalography changed significantly in the patients with ischemic hypoxic encephalopathy. Neurofeedback training can effectively improve brain function in patients with ischemic hypoxic encephalopathy.

[神经反馈训练对缺血性缺氧脑病患者床边连续脑电图监测相对α变异评分和超声评价视神经鞘直径的影响]。
目的:探讨床边连续脑电图监测相对α变异评分和超声评价视神经鞘直径(ONSD)对缺血性缺氧脑病患者的影响,并观察神经反馈训练对脑功能的影响。方法:采用前瞻性观察研究。选取2021年1月至2023年12月在上海市浦东新区人民医院急诊重症监护室就诊、入院时格拉斯哥昏迷评分(GCS)≤8且接受神经反馈训练的符合缺血性缺氧脑病诊断标准的患者作为研究对象(观察组),未接受神经反馈训练且入院时GCS评分≤8的患者作为对照组(对照组)。两组患者均给予神经节苷脂联合脑溶血素静脉注射神经营养治疗,疗程为10 d。在此基础上,观察组患者进行连续14天的神经反馈训练,包括视觉反馈、听觉反馈、冥想和放松。床边连续脑电图监测相对α变异评分,超声检测ONSD。观察神经反馈训练前和训练后14 d脑电图中5个通道的平均功率和慢波功率[以δ - θ比值(DTR)表示]。外周血中性粒细胞/淋巴细胞比值(NLR)、汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)评分、美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)评分、血浆5-羟色胺(5-HT)、脑源性神经营养因子(BDNF)水平的差异。结果:共纳入观察组60例,对照组50例。两组患者在性别、年龄、病程等方面均无显著差异。观察组患者的ONSD和相对α变异评分均显著高于对照组[ond (mm): 5.59±0.42比3.23±0.34,相对α变异评分:2.28±0.39比0.83±0.28,P均< 0.01]。神经反馈训练14 d后,观察组脑电图5通道平均功率和DTR均显著低于治疗前[平均功率(μV2/Hz):额极1 (Fp1) 95.35±3.61比102.58±4.23,额3 (F3) 38.56±4.73比46.13±2.36,中3 (C3) 34.33±5.87比51.71±4.65,F7 58.37±4.45比62.95±3.22,颞3 (T3) 45.23±2.41比54.14±2.45];DTR (μV2/Hz):地电极(GND) 75.21±11.34 vs. 84.12±11.35,参比电极(REF) 72.31±21.67 vs. 88.23±10.25,F4 81.34±8.57 vs. 92.41±8.56,顶叶3 (P3) 71.25±5.42 vs. 87.23±5.64,P4 70.12±5.88 vs. 85.67±6.12;P < 0.05]。而对照组治疗前后5个通道的平均功率差异无统计学意义。两组患者治疗前HAMD评分和NIHSS评分比较,差异均无统计学意义。治疗后第14天上述评分均显著低于同组治疗前,且观察组下降更为显著(HAMD评分:4.59±1.06比10.69±0.97,NIHSS评分:6.81±0.66比8.45±0.87,P均< 0.01)。两组治疗前血浆5-HT、BDNF及外周血NLR比较,差异均无统计学意义。治疗后第14天以上指标均较同组治疗前改善,且观察组水平优于对照组[5-HT (mg/L): 150.25±17.37 vs. 123.34±16.18,BDNF (mg/L): 19.37±2.35 vs. 12.48±2.18,NLR: 4.78±0.83 vs. 5.81±1.17,均P < 0.01]。结论:缺血性缺氧性脑病患者超声测定的ond和脑电图监测的相对α变异评分均发生显著变化。神经反馈训练能有效改善缺血性缺氧脑病患者的脑功能。
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
Zhonghua wei zhong bing ji jiu yi xue
Zhonghua wei zhong bing ji jiu yi xue Medicine-Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信