Jon C Rittenberger1, Alexandra Weissman2, Maria Baldwin3, Kathryn Flickinger2, Melissa J Repine2, Francis X Guyette2, Ankur A Doshi2, Cameron Dezfulian4, Clifton W Callaway2, Jonathan Elmer5. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, United States. Electronic address: rittjc@upmc.edu. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, United States. 3. Department of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh, United States. 4. Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, United States. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, United States; Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Abnormal electroencephalography (EEG) patterns are common after resuscitation from cardiac arrest and have clinical and prognostic importance. Bedside continuous EEGs are not available in many institutions. We tested the feasibility of using a point-of-care system for EEG acquisition. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled a convenience sample of post-cardiac arrest patients between 9/2015-1/2017. Upon hospital arrival, a limited EEG montage was applied. We tested both continuous EEG (cEEG) and this point-of-care EEG (eEEG). A board-certified epileptologist and a board-certified neurointensivist jointly reviewed all EEGs. Cohen's kappa coefficient evaluated agreement between eEEG and cEEG and Fisher's exact test evaluated their associations with survival to hospital discharge and proximate cause of death. RESULTS: We studied 95 comatose post-cardiac arrest patients. Mean age was 59 (SD17) years. Most (61%) were male, few (N = 22; 23%) demonstrated shockable rhythms, and PCAC IV illness severity was present in 58 (61%). eEEG was interpretable in 57 (60%) subjects. The most common eEEG interpretations were: continuous (21%), generalized suppression (14%), burst-suppression (12%) and burst-suppression with identical bursts (10%). Seizures were detected in 2 eEEG subjects (2%). No patient with seizure or burst-suppression with identical bursts survived. cEEG demonstrated generalized suppression (31%), burst-suppression with identical bursts (27%), continuous (18%) and seizure (4%). The eEEG and cEEG demonstrated fair agreement (kappa = 0.27). Neither eEEG nor cEEG was associated with survival (p = 0.19; p = 0.11) or proximate cause of death (p = 0.14; p = 0.8) CONCLUSIONS: eEEG is feasible, although artifact often precludes interpretation. eEEG is fairly associated with cEEG and may facilitate post-cardiac arrest care.
OBJECTIVE:Abnormal electroencephalography (EEG) patterns are common after resuscitation from cardiac arrest and have clinical and prognostic importance. Bedside continuous EEGs are not available in many institutions. We tested the feasibility of using a point-of-care system for EEG acquisition. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled a convenience sample of post-cardiac arrestpatients between 9/2015-1/2017. Upon hospital arrival, a limited EEG montage was applied. We tested both continuous EEG (cEEG) and this point-of-care EEG (eEEG). A board-certified epileptologist and a board-certified neurointensivist jointly reviewed all EEGs. Cohen's kappa coefficient evaluated agreement between eEEG and cEEG and Fisher's exact test evaluated their associations with survival to hospital discharge and proximate cause of death. RESULTS: We studied 95 comatose post-cardiac arrestpatients. Mean age was 59 (SD17) years. Most (61%) were male, few (N = 22; 23%) demonstrated shockable rhythms, and PCAC IV illness severity was present in 58 (61%). eEEG was interpretable in 57 (60%) subjects. The most common eEEG interpretations were: continuous (21%), generalized suppression (14%), burst-suppression (12%) and burst-suppression with identical bursts (10%). Seizures were detected in 2 eEEG subjects (2%). No patient with seizure or burst-suppression with identical bursts survived. cEEG demonstrated generalized suppression (31%), burst-suppression with identical bursts (27%), continuous (18%) and seizure (4%). The eEEG and cEEG demonstrated fair agreement (kappa = 0.27). Neither eEEG nor cEEG was associated with survival (p = 0.19; p = 0.11) or proximate cause of death (p = 0.14; p = 0.8) CONCLUSIONS:eEEG is feasible, although artifact often precludes interpretation. eEEG is fairly associated with cEEG and may facilitate post-cardiac arrest care.
Authors: Jasmeet Soar; Clifton W Callaway; Mayuki Aibiki; Bernd W Böttiger; Steven C Brooks; Charles D Deakin; Michael W Donnino; Saul Drajer; Walter Kloeck; Peter T Morley; Laurie J Morrison; Robert W Neumar; Tonia C Nicholson; Jerry P Nolan; Kazuo Okada; Brian J O'Neil; Edison F Paiva; Michael J Parr; Tzong-Luen Wang; Jonathan Witt Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Jon C Rittenberger; Samuel A Tisherman; Margo B Holm; Francis X Guyette; Clifton W Callaway Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2011-07-05 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Jonathan Elmer; Jon C Rittenberger; John Faro; Bradley J Molyneaux; Alexandra Popescu; Clifton W Callaway; Maria Baldwin Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2016-06-28 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Marleen C Cloostermans; Fokke B van Meulen; Carin J Eertman; Harold W Hom; Michel J A M van Putten Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Jeannette Hofmeijer; Marleen C Tjepkema-Cloostermans; Michel J A M van Putten Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2013-10-26 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Jonathan Elmer; John J Gianakas; Jon C Rittenberger; Maria E Baldwin; John Faro; Cheryl Plummer; Lori A Shutter; Christina L Wassel; Clifton W Callaway; Anthony Fabio Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Jeannette Hofmeijer; Tim M J Beernink; Frank H Bosch; Albertus Beishuizen; Marleen C Tjepkema-Cloostermans; Michel J A M van Putten Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-06-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Barry J Ruijter; Michel J A M van Putten; Janneke Horn; Michiel J Blans; Albertus Beishuizen; Anne-Fleur van Rootselaar; Jeannette Hofmeijer Journal: Trials Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Youn-Jung Kim; Min-Jee Kim; Yong Hwan Kim; Chun Song Youn; In Soo Cho; Su Jin Kim; Jung Hee Wee; Yoo Seok Park; Joo Suk Oh; Dong Hoon Lee; Won Young Kim Journal: Crit Care Date: 2021-11-17 Impact factor: 9.097