Brad J Kolls1, Aatif M Husain. 1. Department of Medicine (Neurology), Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Because of the high incidence of nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE), the attraction of a "quick and easy" screening electroencephalogram (EEG) is obvious. Previous studies have shown utility of hairline EEG in diagnosing epilepsy. However, this technique has not been evaluated as a screening tool for NCSE. We wanted to provide proof of principle that a screening hairline EEG has sufficient sensitivity to use as a screening tool for diagnosing NCSE. METHODS: A total of 120, 2- to 3-min EEG samples of normal and various abnormal digital EEG studies were reformatted in three six-channel montages (A, longitudinal bipolar; B, referential to ipsilateral ear; C, referential to contralateral ear) that mimicked a hairline recording and were interpreted by five neurophysiologists. The test data interpretation was compared with the original EEG interpretation. RESULTS: Performance was best with montages A and B; 71% and 70.5% of the samples were interpreted correctly by using these montages. Only 65% of the samples were correctly interpreted by using montage C. With the best montage (A), the sensitivities ranged from 91% for normal EEG to 54% for periodic lateralized epileptiform discharges (PLEDs). The sensitivity for seizures was only 72%. Seizures were frequently misinterpreted as more benign patterns such as normal and diffuse slowing. CONCLUSIONS: EEG data reformatted to resemble a hairline EEG had low sensitivity for detecting seizures. As a result, we do not recommend further pursuit of hairline EEG as a "quick and easy" screening tool for NCSE.
PURPOSE: Because of the high incidence of nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE), the attraction of a "quick and easy" screening electroencephalogram (EEG) is obvious. Previous studies have shown utility of hairline EEG in diagnosing epilepsy. However, this technique has not been evaluated as a screening tool for NCSE. We wanted to provide proof of principle that a screening hairline EEG has sufficient sensitivity to use as a screening tool for diagnosing NCSE. METHODS: A total of 120, 2- to 3-min EEG samples of normal and various abnormal digital EEG studies were reformatted in three six-channel montages (A, longitudinal bipolar; B, referential to ipsilateral ear; C, referential to contralateral ear) that mimicked a hairline recording and were interpreted by five neurophysiologists. The test data interpretation was compared with the original EEG interpretation. RESULTS: Performance was best with montages A and B; 71% and 70.5% of the samples were interpreted correctly by using these montages. Only 65% of the samples were correctly interpreted by using montage C. With the best montage (A), the sensitivities ranged from 91% for normal EEG to 54% for periodic lateralized epileptiform discharges (PLEDs). The sensitivity for seizures was only 72%. Seizures were frequently misinterpreted as more benign patterns such as normal and diffuse slowing. CONCLUSIONS: EEG data reformatted to resemble a hairline EEG had low sensitivity for detecting seizures. As a result, we do not recommend further pursuit of hairline EEG as a "quick and easy" screening tool for NCSE.
Authors: Susan T Herman; Nicholas S Abend; Thomas P Bleck; Kevin E Chapman; Frank W Drislane; Ronald G Emerson; Elizabeth E Gerard; Cecil D Hahn; Aatif M Husain; Peter W Kaplan; Suzette M LaRoche; Marc R Nuwer; Mark Quigg; James J Riviello; Sarah E Schmitt; Liberty A Simmons; Tammy N Tsuchida; Lawrence J Hirsch Journal: J Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 2.177
Authors: Mark N Rubin; Oliver J Jeffery; Jennifer E Fugate; Jeffery W Britton; Gregory D Cascino; Gregory A Worrell; Sara E Hocker; Eelco F Wijdicks; Alejandro A Rabinstein Journal: Neurohospitalist Date: 2014-01
Authors: Pasi Lepola; Sami Myllymaa; Juha Töyräs; Taina Hukkanen; Esa Mervaala; Sara Määttä; Reijo Lappalainen; Katja Myllymaa Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2015-01-10 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Nicholas S Abend; Kevin E Chapman; William B Gallentine; Joshua Goldstein; Ann E Hyslop; Tobias Loddenkemper; Kendall B Nash; James J Riviello; Cecil D Hahn Journal: Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 5.081
Authors: Amy Z Crepeau; Jeffrey W Britton; Jennifer E Fugate; Alejandro A Rabinstein; Eelco F Wijdicks Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: G Bryan Young; Michael D Sharpe; Martin Savard; Eyad Al Thenayan; Loretta Norton; Corrine Davies-Schinkel Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.210