EEG recording latency in critically ill patients: impact on outcome. An analysis of a randomized controlled trial (CERTA)

Critical care EEG monitoring: improving access and unravelling potentially epileptic patterns

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The major advances in critical care EEG have been the development of rapid response EEG, major revision of the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society's (ACNS) standardized critical care EEG terminology, and the commencement of treatment trials on rhythmic and periodic patterns (RPPs) that do not qualify as seizures.

RECENT FINDINGS

Rapid response EEG (rEEG) has proven an important supplement to full montage continuous EEG monitoring (cEEG). This EEG can be applied in a few minutes and provides excellent ability to exclude seizures, selecting those where conversion to cEEG would have the greatest diagnostic yield. Once cEEG has been commenced, the durations required to adequately exclude seizures have been refined. The ACNS provided major revision and expansion to the standardized critical care EEG terminology, which paved the way for determining with great accuracy the RPPs that are associated with seizures and that are capable of causing neurologic symptoms and/or secondary neuronal injury. The current limitations to multicenter treatment trials of these patterns have been highlighted.

SUMMARY

Novel methods of EEG in critical care have been expanding access to all patients where clinically indicated. Standardized EEG terminology has provided the framework to determine what patterns in which presenting causes warrant treatment vs. those that do not.

Prognostication after cardiac arrest: how EEG and evoked potentials may improve the challenge

About 80% of patients resuscitated from CA are comatose at ICU admission and nearly 50% of survivors are still unawake at 72 h. Predicting neurological outcome of these patients is important to provide correct information to patient's relatives, avoid disproportionate care in patients with irreversible hypoxic-ischemic brain injury (HIBI) and inappropriate withdrawal of care in patients with a possible favorable neurological recovery. ERC/ESICM 2021 algorithm allows a classification as "poor outcome likely" in 32%, the outcome remaining "indeterminate" in 68%. The crucial question is to know how we could improve the assessment of both unfavorable but also favorable outcome prediction. Neurophysiological tests, i.e., electroencephalography (EEG) and evoked-potentials (EPs) are a non-invasive bedside investigations. The EEG is the record of brain electrical fields, characterized by a high temporal resolution but a low spatial resolution. EEG is largely available, and represented the most widely tool use in recent survey examining current neuro-prognostication practices. The severity of HIBI is correlated with the predominant frequency and background continuity of EEG leading to "highly malignant" patterns as suppression or burst suppression in the most severe HIBI. EPs differ from EEG signals as they are stimulus induced and represent the summated activities of large populations of neurons firing in synchrony, requiring the average of numerous stimulations. Different EPs (i.e., somato sensory EPs (SSEPs), brainstem auditory EPs (BAEPs), middle latency auditory EPs (MLAEPs) and long latency event-related potentials (ERPs) with mismatch negativity (MMN) and P300 responses) can be assessed in ICU, with different brain generators and prognostic values. In the present review, we summarize EEG and EPs signal generators, recording modalities, interpretation and prognostic values of these different neurophysiological tools. Finally, we assess the perspective for futures neurophysiological investigations, aiming to reduce prognostic uncertainty in comatose and disorders of consciousness (DoC) patients after CA.

Continuous versus routine EEG in patients after cardiac arrest-Analysis of a randomized controlled trial (CERTA) - RESUS-D-22-00369

BACKGROUND

Electroencephalography (EEG) is essential to assess prognosis in patients after cardiac arrest (CA). Use of continuous EEG (cEEG) is increasing in critically-ill patients, but it is more resource-consuming than routine EEG (rEEG). Observational studies did not show a major impact of cEEG versus rEEG on outcome, but randomized studies are lacking.

METHODS

We analyzed data of the CERTA trial (NCT03129438), including comatose adults after CA undergoing cEEG (30-48 hours) or two rEEG (20-30 minutes each). We explored correlations between recording EEG type and mortality (primary outcome), or Cerebral Performance Categories (CPC, secondary outcome), assessed blindly at 6 months, using uni- and multivariable analyses (adjusting for other prognostic variables showing some imbalance across groups).

RESULTS

We analyzed 112 adults (52 underwent rEEG, 60 cEEG,); 31 (27.7%) were women; 68 (60.7%) patients died. In univariate analysis, mortality (rEEG 59%, cEEG 65%, p=0.318) and good outcome (CPC 1-2; rEEG 33%, cEEG 27%, p=0.247) were comparable across EEG groups. This did not change after multiple logistic regressions, adjusting for shockable rhythm, time to return of spontaneous circulation, serum neuron-specific enolase, EEG background reactivity, regarding mortality (rEEG vs cEEG: OR 1.60, 95% CI 0.43 - 5.83, p=0.477), and good outcome (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.14 - 1.90, p=0.318).

CONCLUSION

This analysis suggests that cEEG or repeated rEEG are related to comparable outcomes of comatose patients after CA. Pending a prospective, large randomized trial, this finding does not support the routine use of cEEG for prognostication in this setting. Trial registration Continuous EEG Randomized Trial in Adults (CERTA); NCT03129438; July 25, 2019.