Abhijeet Rakshasbhuvankar1, Saritha Paul2, Lakshmi Nagarajan3, Soumya Ghosh4, Shripada Rao5. 1. Department of Neonatology, King Edward Hospital for Women and Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Subiaco, Western Australia 6008, Australia; Center for Neonatal Research and Education, School of Pediatrics and Child Health, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia. 2. Department of Neonatology, King Edward Hospital for Women and Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Subiaco, Western Australia 6008, Australia. 3. Department of Neurology, Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Subiaco, Western Australia 6008, Australia; School of Pediatrics and Child Health, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia. 4. Department of Neurology, Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Subiaco, Western Australia 6008, Australia; Center for Neuromuscular and Neurological Disorders, QEII Medical Center, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Western Australia 6009, Australia; Western Australian Neuroscience Research Institute, Nedlands, Western Australia 6009, Australia. 5. Department of Neonatology, King Edward Hospital for Women and Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Subiaco, Western Australia 6008, Australia; Center for Neonatal Research and Education, School of Pediatrics and Child Health, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia. Electronic address: Shripada.Rao@health.wa.gov.au.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Amplitude-integrated electroencephalogram (aEEG) is being used increasingly for monitoring seizures in neonatal units. Its accuracy, compared with "the gold-standard" conventional elecroencephalogram (cEEG) is still not well established. We aimed to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of aEEG when compared with cEEG, for detection of neonatal seizures. METHOD: A systematic review was conducted using the Cochrane methodology. EMBASE, CINAHL and PubMed databases were searched in September 2014. Studies comparing simultaneous recordings of cEEG and aEEG for detection of seizures in neonatal population were included. QUADAS 2 tool was used to examine "risk of bias" and "applicability". RESULTS: Ten studies (patient sample 433) were included. Risk of bias was high in five studies, unclear in one and low in four. For the detection of individual seizures, when "aEEG with raw trace" was used, median sensitivity was 76% (range: 71-85), and specificity 85% (range: 39-96). When "aEEG without raw trace" was used, median sensitivity was 39% (range: 25-80) and specificity 95% (range: 50-100). Detailed meta-analysis could not be done because of significant clinical/methodological heterogeneity. Seizure detection was better when interpreted by experienced clinicians. Seizures with low amplitude/brief duration and those occurring away from aEEG leads were less likely to be detected. CONCLUSION: Studies included in the systematic review showed aEEG to have relatively low and variable sensitivity and specificity. Based on the available evidence, aEEG cannot be recommended as the mainstay for diagnosis and management of neonatal seizures. There is an urgent need of well-designed studies to address this issue definitively.
PURPOSE: Amplitude-integrated electroencephalogram (aEEG) is being used increasingly for monitoring seizures in neonatal units. Its accuracy, compared with "the gold-standard" conventional elecroencephalogram (cEEG) is still not well established. We aimed to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of aEEG when compared with cEEG, for detection of neonatal seizures. METHOD: A systematic review was conducted using the Cochrane methodology. EMBASE, CINAHL and PubMed databases were searched in September 2014. Studies comparing simultaneous recordings of cEEG and aEEG for detection of seizures in neonatal population were included. QUADAS 2 tool was used to examine "risk of bias" and "applicability". RESULTS: Ten studies (patient sample 433) were included. Risk of bias was high in five studies, unclear in one and low in four. For the detection of individual seizures, when "aEEG with raw trace" was used, median sensitivity was 76% (range: 71-85), and specificity 85% (range: 39-96). When "aEEG without raw trace" was used, median sensitivity was 39% (range: 25-80) and specificity 95% (range: 50-100). Detailed meta-analysis could not be done because of significant clinical/methodological heterogeneity. Seizure detection was better when interpreted by experienced clinicians. Seizures with low amplitude/brief duration and those occurring away from aEEG leads were less likely to be detected. CONCLUSION: Studies included in the systematic review showed aEEG to have relatively low and variable sensitivity and specificity. Based on the available evidence, aEEG cannot be recommended as the mainstay for diagnosis and management of neonatal seizures. There is an urgent need of well-designed studies to address this issue definitively.
Authors: Nathalie M El Ters; Amit M Mathur; Siddharth Jain; Zachary A Vesoulis; John M Zempel Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2018-03-10 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Janet M Rennie; Linda S de Vries; Mats Blennow; Adrienne Foran; Divyen K Shah; Vicki Livingstone; Alexander C van Huffelen; Sean R Mathieson; Elena Pavlidis; Lauren C Weeke; Mona C Toet; Mikael Finder; Raga Mallika Pinnamaneni; Deirdre M Murray; Anthony C Ryan; William P Marnane; Geraldine B Boylan Journal: Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed Date: 2018-11-24 Impact factor: 5.747
Authors: Serena Pellegrin; Flor M Munoz; Michael Padula; Paul T Heath; Lee Meller; Karina Top; Jo Wilmshurst; Max Wiznitzer; Manoja Kumar Das; Cecil D Hahn; Merita Kucuku; James Oleske; Kollencheri Puthenveettil Vinayan; Elissa Yozawitz; Satinder Aneja; Niranjan Bhat; Geraldine Boylan; Sanie Sesay; Anju Shrestha; Janet S Soul; Beckie Tagbo; Jyoti Joshi; Aung Soe; Helena C Maltezou; Jane Gidudu; Sonali Kochhar; Ronit M Pressler Journal: Vaccine Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 3.641