4.4 Article

Continuous EEG Monitoring in a Consecutive Patient Cohort with Sepsis and Delirium

Journal

NEUROCRITICAL CARE
Volume 32, Issue 1, Pages 121-130

Publisher

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12028-019-00703-w

Keywords

Critical care; Delirium; Sepsis; Electroencephalography; Epilepsy; Brain diseases

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Delirium is common during sepsis, although under-recognized. We aimed to assess the value of continuous electroencephalography (cEEG) to aid in the diagnosis of delirium in septic patients. Methods We prospectively evaluated 102 consecutive patients in a medical intensive care unit (ICU), who had sepsis or septic shock, without evidence of acute primary central nervous system disease. We initiated cEEG recording immediately after identification. The median cEEG time per patient was 44 h (interquartile range 21-99 h). A total of 6723 h of cEEG recordings were examined. The Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) was administered six times daily to identify delirium. We analyzed the correlation between cEEG and delirium using 1252 two-minute EEG sequences recorded simultaneously with the CAM-ICU scorings. Results Of the 102 included patients, 66 (65%) had at least one delirium episode during their ICU stay, 30 (29%) remained delirium-free, and 6 (6%) were not assessable due to deep sedation or coma. The absence of delirium was independently associated with preserved high-frequency beta activity (> 13 Hz) (P < 10(-7)) and cEEG reactivity (P < 0.001). Delirium was associated with preponderance of low-frequency cEEG activity and absence of high-frequency cEEG activity. Sporadic periodic cEEG discharges occurred in 15 patients, 13 of whom were delirious. No patient showed clinical or electrographic evidence of non-convulsive status epilepticus. Conclusions Our findings indicate that cEEG can help distinguish septic patients with delirium from non-delirious patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available