- Version
- Download 1
- File Size 429.00 KB
- File Count 1
- Create Date May 15, 2025
- Last Updated May 15, 2025
| File | |
|---|---|
| Rittenbergera, 2018 |
Preliminary experience with point-of-care EEG in post-cardiac arrest patients
Jon C. Rittenbergera, Alexandra Weissmana, Maria Baldwinb, Kathryn Flickingera, Melissa J. Repinea, Francis X. Guyettea, Ankur A. Doshia, Cameron Dezfulianc, Clifton W. Callawaya, Jonathan Elmer
Abstract
Objective Abnormal electroencephalography (EEG) patterns are common after resuscitation from cardiac arrest and have clinical and prognostic importance. Bedside continuous EEGs are not available in many institutions. We tested the feasibility of using a point-of-care system for EEG acquisition.
Methods We prospectively enrolled a convenience sample of post-cardiac arrest patients between 9/2015–1/2017. Upon hospital arrival, a limited EEG montage was applied. We tested both continuous EEG (cEEG) and this point-of-care EEG (eEEG). A board-certified epileptologist and a board-certified neurointensivist jointly reviewed all EEGs. Cohen’s kappa coefficient evaluated agreement between eEEG and cEEG and Fisher’s exact test evaluated their associations with survival to hospital discharge and proximate cause of death.
Results We studied 95 comatose post-cardiac arrest patients. Mean age was 59 (SD17) years. Most (61%) were male, few (N = 22; 23%) demonstrated shockable rhythms, and PCAC IV illness severity was present in 58 (61%). eEEG was interpretable in 57 (60%) subjects. The most common eEEG interpretations were: continuous (21%), generalized suppression (14%), burst-suppression (12%) and burst-suppression with identical bursts (10%). Seizures were detected in 2 eEEG subjects (2%). No patient with seizure or burst-suppression with identical bursts survived. cEEG demonstrated generalized suppression (31%), burst-suppression with identical bursts (27%), continuous (18%) and seizure (4%). The eEEG and cEEG demonstrated fair agreement (kappa = 0.27). Neither eEEG nor cEEG was associated with survival (p = 0.19; p = 0.11) or proximate cause of death (p = 0.14; p = 0.8)
Conclusions eEEG is feasible, although artifact often precludes interpretation. eEEG is fairly associated with cEEG and may facilitate post-cardiac arrest care.
