Continuous Versus Routine EEG in Critically Ill Patients Without Primary Neurologic Condition: Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Gregory Lepeu, Jan Novy, Vincent Alvarez, Kaspar A. Schindler, Stephan Rüegg, A. O. Rossetti
{"title":"Continuous Versus Routine EEG in Critically Ill Patients Without Primary Neurologic Condition: Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial","authors":"Gregory Lepeu,&nbsp;Jan Novy,&nbsp;Vincent Alvarez,&nbsp;Kaspar A. Schindler,&nbsp;Stephan Rüegg,&nbsp;A. O. Rossetti","doi":"10.1111/ene.70768","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <section>\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n <p>Continuous EEG (cEEG) is increasingly used in critically ill patients, driven by its superior seizure detection sensitivity over routine EEG (rEEG). However, cEEG is resource-demanding, and whether its use translates into improved clinical outcomes in patients without primary neurologic conditions remains unknown.</p>\n </section>\n <section>\n <h3> Methods</h3>\n <p>This is a post hoc analysis of the multicenter randomized CERTA trial, in which critically-ill adults were randomized 1:1 to cEEG or two rEEG recordings. Six-month mortality represented the primary outcome, while exploratory outcomes included functional outcome (Cerebral Performance Categories, CPC), detection of seizures/status epilepticus, ictal–interictal continuum features, medication changes, and infections within 4 weeks. Analysis was restricted to patients without primary neurologic injury.</p>\n </section>\n <section>\n <h3> Results</h3>\n <p>Among 364 enrolled patients, 76 lacked a primary neurologic condition (cEEG: <i>n</i> = 34, rEEG: <i>n</i> = 42). Continuous EEG was not associated with mortality (<i>p</i> = 0.970) or functional outcome (CPC 1–2; <i>p</i> = 0.893). No seizures or status epilepticus were detected in either group. Rates of EEG periodic patterns, ictal–interictal continuum features, medication changes, and infections were comparable between groups.</p>\n </section>\n <section>\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n <p>In critically ill adults without a primary neurologic condition, cEEG was not associated with measurable benefits in survival, neurological recovery, or epileptiform activity detection compared with repeated rEEG, in a cohort without detected electrographic seizures or status epilepticus. Pending larger, ideally prospective comparative studies, repeated routine EEG may represent a reasonable alternative in resource-limited settings.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":11954,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Neurology","volume":"33 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13617542/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ene.70768","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Continuous EEG (cEEG) is increasingly used in critically ill patients, driven by its superior seizure detection sensitivity over routine EEG (rEEG). However, cEEG is resource-demanding, and whether its use translates into improved clinical outcomes in patients without primary neurologic conditions remains unknown.

Methods

This is a post hoc analysis of the multicenter randomized CERTA trial, in which critically-ill adults were randomized 1:1 to cEEG or two rEEG recordings. Six-month mortality represented the primary outcome, while exploratory outcomes included functional outcome (Cerebral Performance Categories, CPC), detection of seizures/status epilepticus, ictal–interictal continuum features, medication changes, and infections within 4 weeks. Analysis was restricted to patients without primary neurologic injury.

Results

Among 364 enrolled patients, 76 lacked a primary neurologic condition (cEEG: n = 34, rEEG: n = 42). Continuous EEG was not associated with mortality (p = 0.970) or functional outcome (CPC 1–2; p = 0.893). No seizures or status epilepticus were detected in either group. Rates of EEG periodic patterns, ictal–interictal continuum features, medication changes, and infections were comparable between groups.

Conclusion

In critically ill adults without a primary neurologic condition, cEEG was not associated with measurable benefits in survival, neurological recovery, or epileptiform activity detection compared with repeated rEEG, in a cohort without detected electrographic seizures or status epilepticus. Pending larger, ideally prospective comparative studies, repeated routine EEG may represent a reasonable alternative in resource-limited settings.

无原发性神经系统疾病的危重患者连续与常规脑电图:一项随机对照试验分析。
连续脑电图(cEEG)由于其优于常规脑电图(rEEG)的癫痫检测灵敏度,越来越多地应用于危重患者。然而,脑电图是一种资源消耗,对于没有原发性神经系统疾病的患者,脑电图的使用是否能改善临床结果尚不清楚。方法:这是一项多中心随机CERTA试验的事后分析,在该试验中,危重成人按1:1的比例随机接受脑电图或两次脑电图记录。六个月死亡率是主要结果,而探索性结果包括功能结果(脑功能类别,CPC)、癫痫发作/癫痫持续状态的检测、发作-发作间期连续特征、药物变化和4周内的感染。分析仅限于无原发性神经损伤的患者。结果:在364例入组患者中,76例无原发性神经系统疾病(cEEG: n = 34, rEEG: n = 42)。连续脑电图与死亡率(p = 0.970)或功能结局(CPC 1-2; p = 0.893)无关。两组均未发现癫痫发作或癫痫持续状态。脑电图周期模式、发作-发作间连续特征、药物变化和感染的发生率在两组之间具有可比性。结论:在没有原发性神经系统疾病的危重成人中,与重复rEEG相比,在没有检测到电图癫痫发作或癫痫持续状态的队列中,cEEG与生存、神经恢复或癫痫样活动检测方面没有可测量的益处。在进行更大规模的前瞻性比较研究之前,在资源有限的情况下,重复常规脑电图可能是一种合理的选择。
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
European Journal of Neurology
European Journal of Neurology 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
2.00%
发文量
418
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Neurology is the official journal of the European Academy of Neurology and covers all areas of clinical and basic research in neurology, including pre-clinical research of immediate translational value for new potential treatments. Emphasis is placed on major diseases of large clinical and socio-economic importance (dementia, stroke, epilepsy, headache, multiple sclerosis, movement disorders, and infectious diseases).
×
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
小红书