Mehdi Ghasemi1, Muhammad Umer Azeem1, Susanne Muehlschlegel2, Felicia Chu1, Nils Henninger3. 1. Department of Neurology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA 01655, USA. 2. Department of Neurology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA 01655, USA; Department of Surgery, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA 01655, USA; Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA 01655, USA. 3. Department of Neurology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA 01655, USA; Department of Psychiatry, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA 01655, USA. Electronic address: nils.henninger@umassmed.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine clinical factors, including established electroencephalography (EEG) consensus recommendations, that may influence EEG-prescription in critically-ill intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) patients in the neurointensive care unit. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 330 ICH patients admitted to a neurointensive care unit at an academic medical center between 01/2013-12/2015. We compared EEG prescription patterns with current EEG consensus recommendations, and employed univariate and multivariable logistic regression modeling to determine clinical variables associated with EEG ordering. RESULTS: Seventy-eight (41%) of 190 subjects underwent EEG in accordance with EEG-consensus guidelines, demonstrating an overall accuracy (probability that EEG prescription aligned with EEG consensus recommendations) of 64.6% (95%-CI59.1-69.7). Factors independently associated with EEG ordering included fulfillment of EEG consensus recommendations, lower admission Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), and presence of clinical seizures. The unadjusted and adjusted C-statistics for fulfillment of consensus recommendations was 0.74 (95%-CI 0.69-0.80) and 0.85 (95%-CI 0.81-0.90), respectively. Among 83 subjects undergoing EEG (25.2%), EEG findings informed clinical decision-making in 50 patients (60%). CONCLUSIONS: EEG appeared underused in ICH, since <50% of patients who fulfilled guideline criteria underwent EEG. Prescription of EEG was related to factors beyond those included in consensus recommendations. Validation of our findings and their association with outcome is required.
PURPOSE: To examine clinical factors, including established electroencephalography (EEG) consensus recommendations, that may influence EEG-prescription in critically-ill intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) patients in the neurointensive care unit. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 330 ICHpatients admitted to a neurointensive care unit at an academic medical center between 01/2013-12/2015. We compared EEG prescription patterns with current EEG consensus recommendations, and employed univariate and multivariable logistic regression modeling to determine clinical variables associated with EEG ordering. RESULTS: Seventy-eight (41%) of 190 subjects underwent EEG in accordance with EEG-consensus guidelines, demonstrating an overall accuracy (probability that EEG prescription aligned with EEG consensus recommendations) of 64.6% (95%-CI59.1-69.7). Factors independently associated with EEG ordering included fulfillment of EEG consensus recommendations, lower admission Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), and presence of clinical seizures. The unadjusted and adjusted C-statistics for fulfillment of consensus recommendations was 0.74 (95%-CI 0.69-0.80) and 0.85 (95%-CI 0.81-0.90), respectively. Among 83 subjects undergoing EEG (25.2%), EEG findings informed clinical decision-making in 50 patients (60%). CONCLUSIONS: EEG appeared underused in ICH, since <50% of patients who fulfilled guideline criteria underwent EEG. Prescription of EEG was related to factors beyond those included in consensus recommendations. Validation of our findings and their association with outcome is required.
Authors: L J Hirsch; S M LaRoche; N Gaspard; E Gerard; A Svoronos; S T Herman; R Mani; H Arif; N Jette; Y Minazad; J F Kerrigan; P Vespa; S Hantus; J Claassen; G B Young; E So; P W Kaplan; M R Nuwer; N B Fountain; F W Drislane Journal: J Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 2.177
Authors: J Claude Hemphill; Steven M Greenberg; Craig S Anderson; Kyra Becker; Bernard R Bendok; Mary Cushman; Gordon L Fung; Joshua N Goldstein; R Loch Macdonald; Pamela H Mitchell; Phillip A Scott; Magdy H Selim; Daniel Woo Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: J Claassen; N Jetté; F Chum; R Green; M Schmidt; H Choi; J Jirsch; J A Frontera; E Sander Connolly; R G Emerson; S A Mayer; L J Hirsch Journal: Neurology Date: 2007-09-25 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Steven R Messé; Lauren H Sansing; Brett L Cucchiara; Susan T Herman; Patrick D Lyden; Scott E Kasner Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2009-03-25 Impact factor: 3.210