Literature DB >> 35410905

Seizure Detection in Continuous Inpatient EEG: A Comparison of Human vs Automated Review.

Taneeta Mindy Ganguly1, Colin A Ellis1, Danni Tu1, Russell T Shinohara1, Kathryn A Davis1, Brian Litt1, Jay Pathmanathan2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this work was to test the accuracy of Persyst commercially available automated seizure detection in critical care EEG by comparing automated seizure detections to human review in a manually reviewed cohort and on a large scale.
METHODS: Automated seizure detections (Persyst versions 12 and 13) were compared to human review in a pilot cohort of 229 seizures from 85 EEG records and then in an expanded cohort of 7,924 EEG records. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for individual seizures (pilot cohort) and for entire records (pilot and expanded cohorts). We assessed EEG features associated with the accuracy of automated seizure detections.
RESULTS: In the pilot cohort, accuracy of automated detection for individual seizures was modest (sensitivity 0.50, PPV 0.60). At the record level (did the recording contain seizures or not?), sensitivity was higher (pilot cohort 0.78, expanded cohort 0.91), PPV was low (pilot cohort 0.40, expanded cohort 0.08), and NPV was high (pilot cohort 0.88, expanded cohort 0.97). Different software versions (version 12 vs 13) performed similarly. Sensitivity was higher for records containing focal-onset seizures compared to generalized-onset seizures (0.93 vs 0.85, p = 0.012). DISCUSSION: In critical care continuous EEG recordings, automated detection of individual seizures had rates of both false negatives and false positives that bring into question its utility as a seizure alarm in clinical practice. At the level of entire EEG records, the absence of automated detections accurately predicted EEG records without true seizures. The true value of Persyst automated seizure detection appears to lie in triaging of low-risk EEGs. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that an automated seizure detection program cannot accurately identify EEG records that contain seizures.
© 2022 American Academy of Neurology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35410905      PMCID: PMC9162163          DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000200267

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurology        ISSN: 0028-3878            Impact factor:   11.800


  20 in total

1.  Continuous EEG is associated with favorable hospitalization outcomes for critically ill patients.

Authors:  Chloe E Hill; Leah J Blank; Dylan Thibault; Kathryn A Davis; Nabila Dahodwala; Brian Litt; Allison W Willis
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2018-11-30       Impact factor: 9.910

Review 2.  Which EEG patterns warrant treatment in the critically ill? Reviewing the evidence for treatment of periodic epileptiform discharges and related patterns.

Authors:  Derek J Chong; Lawrence J Hirsch
Journal:  J Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.177

3.  Utilization of Quantitative EEG Trends for Critical Care Continuous EEG Monitoring: A Survey of Neurophysiologists.

Authors:  Christa B Swisher; Saurabh R Sinha
Journal:  J Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.177

4.  Consensus statement on continuous EEG in critically ill adults and children, part I: indications.

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

5.  Yield of conventional and automated seizure detection methods in the epilepsy monitoring unit.

Authors:  Brad K Kamitaki; Alma Yum; James Lee; Shelly Rishty; Kartik Sivaraaman; Abdolreza Esfahanizadeh; Ram Mani; Stephen Wong
Journal:  Seizure       Date:  2019-05-20       Impact factor: 3.184

6.  Prospective multi-center study of an automatic online seizure detection system for epilepsy monitoring units.

Authors:  F Fürbass; P Ossenblok; M Hartmann; H Perko; A M Skupch; G Lindinger; L Elezi; E Pataraia; A J Colon; C Baumgartner; T Kluge
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2014-10-02       Impact factor: 3.708

7.  Non-expert use of quantitative EEG displays for seizure identification in the adult neuro-intensive care unit.

Authors:  Nese Dericioglu; Ezgi Yetim; Demet Funda Bas; Nuray Bilgen; Gulsen Caglar; Ethem Murat Arsava; Mehmet Akif Topcuoglu
Journal:  Epilepsy Res       Date:  2014-10-28       Impact factor: 3.045

8.  The probability of seizures during EEG monitoring in critically ill adults.

Authors:  M Brandon Westover; Mouhsin M Shafi; Matt T Bianchi; Lidia M V R Moura; Deirdre O'Rourke; Eric S Rosenthal; Catherine J Chu; Samantha Donovan; Daniel B Hoch; Ronan D Kilbride; Andrew J Cole; Sydney S Cash
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2014-07-11       Impact factor: 3.708

9.  Non-convulsive status epilepticus and non-convulsive seizures in neurological ICU patients.

Authors:  Ikuko Laccheo; Hasan Sonmezturk; Amar B Bhatt; Luke Tomycz; Yaping Shi; Marianna Ringel; Gina DiCarlo; DeAngelo Harris; John Barwise; Bassel Abou-Khalil; Kevin F Haas
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 3.210

10.  Seizure detection devices: A survey of needs and preferences of patients and caregivers.

Authors:  Tamara Herrera-Fortin; Elie Bou Assi; Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Dang K Nguyen
Journal:  Epilepsy Behav       Date:  2020-11-25       Impact factor: 2.937

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.