Electroencephalographic findings in patients with circumscribed thalamic lesions

Atypical or Typical Triphasic Waves-Is There a Difference? A Review

SUMMARY

The entity of triphasic waves (TWs) and TW encephalopathy has derived from the subjective art of EEG interpretation. Indeed, there are few if any guidelines regarding many different aspects of TWs. The authors seek to shed light on the nature and the diagnostic characteristics of various types of TWs, differentiating "typical" from "atypical" forms. The authors conclude that morphologies in the form of bursts of well-formed, smoothly contoured, negative-positive-negative, bilateral, symmetrical and synchronous, regular, reactive, periodic or rhythmic, 1.5 to 2.0 Hz, fronto-central, triphasic complexes with fronto-occipital lag meet the criteria for typical TWs and are highly suggestive of toxic-metabolic encephalopathies. These are most frequently hepatic, uremic, or sepsis-associated encephalopathies with multi-organ failure. In such cases, atypical TWs (frontopolar or parieto-occipital maximum, negative-positive or negative-positive-negative, asymmetric and asynchronous, unreactive, irregular, multifocal, continuous with spatiotemporal evolution, sharper and without fronto-occipital/occipito-frontal lag, or triphasic delta waves) are rarely seen. Atypical TWs are encountered in Angelman syndrome, toxic encephalopathies, hyperthyroidism/hypothyroidism, Hashimoto encephalopathy, nonconvulsive status epilepticus, dementia, sepsis-associated encephalopathy, cerebrovascular disorders, and certain boundary syndromes. Investigations describing TWs with uncommon etiologies revealed few with typical TWs, suggesting that the term "TWs" has been overused in the past. Triphasic waves arise from the interaction of multiple factors including toxic, metabolic, infectious, and structural disorders that affect circuits between thalamus and cortex. The patient's metabolic status, presence of potentially neurotoxic drugs, cerebral atrophy, white matter disease, dementia, or seizures help differentiate typical from typical TWs. Future studies will determine whether this dichotomy is heuristically and clinically helpful.

Triphasic Waves: Historical Overview of an Unresolved Mystery

SUMMARY

Triphasic waves are a fascinating and mysterious EEG feature. We now have to accept that, at times, epileptiform discharges may have a blunted "triphasic morphology," and that there may be great difficulty in distinguishing between these often similar forms. The aim of this review was to describe the evolution in our understanding of triphasic waves that has occurred regarding the pathophysiology of triphasic waves, their most frequent causes, and the diagnostic difficulties involved in interpretation and differentiation from nonconvulsive status epilepticus.

Non-convulsive status epilepticus induced by acute thalamic lesions: A report of three cases

The thalamocortical network appears to play a pivotal role in ictogenesis. We herein present three cases of non-convulsive status epilepticus (SE), in adult patients without previous history of epilepsy or seizures, precipitated by acute thalamic vascular and metabolic-induced lesions. In all cases the EEG showed patterns consistent with generalized SE confirmed either by a fast and complete clinical and EEG response to anti-seizure medication or definitive subtle motor signs consistent with SE. We argue that the subcortical disruption of thalamocortical networks due to the thalamic lesion predisposed to the occurrence of non-convulsive SE. In patients with thalamic disorders and unexplained mental status changes EEG evaluation should always be considered.

Source Analysis of Triphasic Waves Using Quantitative Neuroimaging

PURPOSE

Triphasic waves (TWs), a common EEG pattern, are considered a subtype of generalized periodic discharges. Most patients with TWs present with an altered level of consciousness, and the TW pattern is believed to represent thalamocortical dysfunction. However, the exact meaning and mechanism of TWs remain unclear. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the source of TWs using EEG source imaging and computerized tomography.

METHODS

Twenty-eight patients with TWs were investigated. Source analysis was performed on the averaged TWs for each individual, and source maps were extracted. Normalization and automatic segmentation of gray matter were performed on computerized tomography scans before analysis. Finally, voxelwise correlation analyses were conducted between EEG source maps and gray matter volumes.

RESULTS

Source analyses showed that the anterior cingulate cortex was mainly involved in TWs (16/28 patients, 57%). Correlation analyses showed moderate positive and negative correlations between source location and gray matter volumes for the posterior cingulate (T = 2.85; volume = 6,533 mm3; r = 0.53; P = 0.002) and the superior frontal gyrus (T = 2.54; volume = 18,167 mm3; r = -0.48; P < 0.0001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that the anterior cingulate is involved in the origin of TWs. Furthermore, the volumes of posterior brain regions were positively correlated with TWs, indicating a possible preservation of these structures. Conversely, the volumes of anterior regions were negatively correlated with TWs. These findings may indicate a structural pattern necessary for the generation of the abnormal network responsible for TWs.

Acute Toxicity and Triphasic Waves-The Example of Cefepime

PURPOSE

Triphasic waves (TWs) have been associated with a host of medication toxicities, and cefepime has emerged recently as a frequently encountered offending agent. This investigation aims to evaluate cefepime-induced encephalopathy and to report the associated clinical, EEG expression with TWs, and the radiologic findings.

METHODS

A retrospective multicenter observational study examining adult patients with cefepime-induced encephalopathy with generalized periodic discharges on either routine or continuous EEG between January 2014 and January 2020. Clinical, electrographic, and radiologic data were collected. Patients in whom cefepime was not the sole causative factor for their encephalopathy were excluded.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients with cefepime-induced encephalopathy marked by generalized periodic discharges with triphasic morphology were identified at both centers, whereas no patients were presenting with generalized periodic discharges without TWs. Patients had a median age of 63 years (interquartile range, 56-73). Fifty-six percent of the cohort (15 patients) were <65 years of age. Eighteen patients (67%) had either acute or chronic kidney impairment (either acute kidney injury or chronic kidney disease or both), whereas 81% had preexisting white matter disease on brain imaging. Of these, 14 patients (51%) were classified as either moderate or severe. In the majority of the patients, TWs were either state-dependent or stimulus-sensitive, and in one third of them presented only as stimulus-induced pattern. All patients improved with discontinuation of cefepime.

CONCLUSIONS

Cefepime toxicity should be considered in the differential diagnosis in encephalopathic patients with TWs. The presence of preexisting white matter disease in these patients should heighten the degree of suspicion, especially in younger patients and patients without renal dysfunction.