Validation of a Model for Targeted EEG Monitoring Duration in Critically Ill Children

Survey of Pediatric ICU EEG Monitoring-Reassessment After a Decade

PURPOSE

In 2011, the authors conducted a survey regarding continuous EEG (CEEG) utilization in critically ill children. In the interim decade, the literature has expanded, and guidelines and consensus statements have addressed CEEG utilization. Thus, the authors aimed to characterize current practice related to CEEG utilization in critically ill children.

METHODS

The authors conducted an online survey of pediatric neurologists from 50 US and 12 Canadian institutions in 2022.

RESULTS

The authors assessed responses from 48 of 62 (77%) surveyed institutions. Reported CEEG indications were consistent with consensus statement recommendations and included altered mental status after a seizure or status epilepticus, altered mental status of unknown etiology, or altered mental status with an acute primary neurological condition. Since the prior survey, there was a 3- to 4-fold increase in the number of patients undergoing CEEG per month and greater use of written pathways for ICU CEEG. However, variability in resources and workflow persisted, particularly regarding technologist availability, frequency of CEEG screening, communication approaches, and electrographic seizure management approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the surveyed institutions, which included primarily large academic centers, CEEG use in pediatric intensive care units has increased with some practice standardization, but variability in resources and workflow were persistent.

Update in Pediatric Neurocritical Care: What a Neurologist Caring for Critically Ill Children Needs to Know

Currently nearly one-quarter of admissions to pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) worldwide are for neurocritical care diagnoses that are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Pediatric neurocritical care is a rapidly evolving field with unique challenges due to not only age-related responses to primary neurologic insults and their treatments but also the rarity of pediatric neurocritical care conditions at any given institution. The structure of pediatric neurocritical care services therefore is most commonly a collaborative model where critical care medicine physicians coordinate care and are supported by a multidisciplinary team of pediatric subspecialists, including neurologists. While pediatric neurocritical care lies at the intersection between critical care and the neurosciences, this narrative review focuses on the most common clinical scenarios encountered by pediatric neurologists as consultants in the PICU and synthesizes the recent evidence, best practices, and ongoing research in these cases. We provide an in-depth review of (1) the evaluation and management of abnormal movements (seizures/status epilepticus and status dystonicus); (2) acute weakness and paralysis (focusing on pediatric stroke and select pediatric neuroimmune conditions); (3) neuromonitoring modalities using a pathophysiology-driven approach; (4) neuroprotective strategies for which there is evidence (e.g., pediatric severe traumatic brain injury, post-cardiac arrest care, and ischemic stroke and hemorrhagic stroke); and (5) best practices for neuroprognostication in pediatric traumatic brain injury, cardiac arrest, and disorders of consciousness, with highlights of the 2023 updates on Brain Death/Death by Neurological Criteria. Our review of the current state of pediatric neurocritical care from the viewpoint of what a pediatric neurologist in the PICU needs to know is intended to improve knowledge for providers at the bedside with the goal of better patient care and outcomes.

EEG Monitoring in Critically Ill Children: Establishing High-Yield Subgroups

PURPOSE

Continuous EEG monitoring (CEEG) is increasingly used to identify electrographic seizures (ES) in critically ill children, but it is resource intense. We aimed to assess how patient stratification by known ES risk factors would impact CEEG utilization.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study of critically ill children with encephalopathy who underwent CEEG. We calculated the average CEEG duration required to identify a patient with ES for the full cohort and subgroups stratified by known ES risk factors.

RESULTS

ES occurred in 345 of 1,399 patients (25%). For the full cohort, an average of 90 hours of CEEG would be required to identify 90% of patients with ES. If subgroups of patients were stratified by age, clinically evident seizures before CEEG initiation, and early EEG risk factors, then 20 to 1,046 hours of CEEG would be required to identify a patient with ES. Patients with clinically evident seizures before CEEG initiation and EEG risk factors present in the initial hour of CEEG required only 20 (<1 year) or 22 (≥1 year) hours of CEEG to identify a patient with ES. Conversely, patients with no clinically evident seizures before CEEG initiation and no EEG risk factors in the initial hour of CEEG required 405 (<1 year) or 1,046 (≥1 year) hours of CEEG to identify a patient with ES. Patients with clinically evident seizures before CEEG initiation or EEG risk factors in the initial hour of CEEG required 29 to 120 hours of CEEG to identify a patient with ES.

CONCLUSIONS

Stratifying patients by clinical and EEG risk factors could identify high- and low-yield subgroups for CEEG by considering ES incidence, the duration of CEEG required to identify ES, and subgroup size. This approach may be critical for optimizing CEEG resource allocation.

Late-Onset Findings During Extended EEG Monitoring Are Rare in Critically Ill Children

PURPOSE

Electrographic seizures (ES) are common in critically ill children undergoing continuous EEG (CEEG) monitoring, and previous studies have aimed to target limited CEEG resources to children at highest risk of ES. However, previous studies have relied on observational data in which the duration of CEEG was clinically determined. Thus, the incidence of late occurring ES is unknown. The authors aimed to assess the incidence of ES for 24 hours after discontinuation of clinically indicated CEEG.

METHODS

This was a single-center prospective study of nonconsecutive children with acute encephalopathy in the pediatric intensive care unit who underwent 24 hours of extended research EEG after the end of clinical CEEG. The authors assessed whether there were new findings that affected clinical management during the extended research EEG, including new-onset ES.

RESULTS

Sixty-three subjects underwent extended research EEG. The median duration of the extended research EEG was 24.3 hours (interquartile range 24.0-25.3). Three subjects (5%) had an EEG change during the extended research EEG that resulted in a change in clinical management, including an increase in ES frequency, differential diagnosis of an event, and new interictal epileptiform discharges. No subjects had new-onset ES during the extended research EEG.

CONCLUSIONS

No subjects experienced new-onset ES during the 24-hour extended research EEG period. This finding supports observational data that patients with late-onset ES are rare and suggests that ES prediction models derived from observational data are likely not substantially underrepresenting the incidence of late-onset ES after discontinuation of clinically indicated CEEG.

Optimizing EEG monitoring in critically ill children at risk for electroencephalographic seizures

OBJECTIVE

Strategies are needed to optimally deploy continuous EEG monitoring (CEEG) for electroencephalographic seizure (ES) identification and management due to resource limitations. We aimed to construct an efficient multi-stage prediction model guiding CEEG utilization to identify ES in critically ill children using clinical and EEG covariates.

METHODS

The largest prospective single-center cohort of 1399 consecutive children undergoing CEEG was analyzed. A four-stage model was developed and trained to predict whether a subject required additional CEEG at the conclusion of each stage given their risk of ES. Logistic regression, elastic net, random forest, and CatBoost served as candidate methods for each stage and were evaluated using cross validation. An optimal multi-stage model consisting of the top-performing stage-specific models was constructed.

RESULTS

When evaluated on a test set, the optimal multi-stage model achieved a cumulative specificity of 0.197 and cumulative F1 score of 0.326 while maintaining a high minimum cumulative sensitivity of 0.938. Overall, 11 % of test subjects with ES were removed from the model due to a predicted low risk of ES (falsely negative subjects). CEEG utilization would be reduced by 32 % and 47 % compared to performing 24 and 48 h of CEEG in all test subjects, respectively. We developed a web application called EEGLE (EEG Length Estimator) that enables straightforward implementation of the model.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of the optimal multi-stage ES prediction model could either reduce CEEG utilization for patients at lower risk of ES or promote CEEG resource reallocation to patients at higher risk for ES.

Electrographic Seizure Characteristics and Electrographic Status Epilepticus Prediction

PURPOSE

We aimed to characterize electrographic seizures (ES) and electrographic status epilepticus (ESE) and determine whether a model predicting ESE exclusively could effectively guide continuous EEG monitoring (CEEG) utilization in critically ill children.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study of consecutive critically ill children with encephalopathy who underwent CEEG. We used descriptive statistics to characterize ES and ESE, and we developed a model for ESE prediction.

RESULTS

ES occurred in 25% of 1,399 subjects. Among subjects with ES, 23% had ESE, including 37% with continuous seizures lasting >30 minutes and 63% with recurrent seizures totaling 30 minutes within a 1-hour epoch. The median onset of ES and ESE occurred 1.8 and 0.18 hours after CEEG initiation, respectively. The optimal model for ESE prediction yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of 0.81. A cutoff selected to emphasize sensitivity (91%) yielded specificity of 56%. Given the 6% ESE incidence, positive predictive value was 11% and negative predictive value was 99%. If the model were applied to our cohort, then 53% of patients would not undergo CEEG and 8% of patients experiencing ESE would not be identified.

CONCLUSIONS

ESE was common, but most patients with ESE had recurrent brief seizures rather than long individual seizures. A model predicting ESE might only slightly improve CEEG utilization over models aiming to identify patients at risk for ES but would fail to identify some patients with ESE. Models identifying ES might be more advantageous for preventing ES from evolving into ESE.