Structure and Outcomes of Educational Programs for Training Non-electroencephalographers in Performing and Screening Adult EEG: A Systematic Review

The Evolving Role of Electroencephalography in Postarrest Care

Electroencephalography is an accessible, portable, noninvasive and safe means of evaluating a patient's brain activity. It can aid in diagnosis and management decisions for post-cardiac arrest patients with seizures, myoclonus and other non-epileptic movements. It also plays an important role in a multimodal approach to neuroprognostication predicting both poor and favorable outcomes. Individuals ordering, performing and interpreting these tests, regardless of the indication, should understand the supporting evidence, logistical considerations, limitations and impact the results may have on postarrest patients and their families as outlined herein.

What Do You See? Signature Pedagogy in Continuous Electroencephalography Teaching

PURPOSE

Electroencephalography (EEG) is commonly used in neurology, but there is variability in how neurologists interpret EEGs, potentially from variability in EEG teaching. Little is known about how EEG teaching is done to prepare neurologists for professional practice.

METHODS

We interviewed a group of EEG experts to characterize their teaching practices around continuous EEG (cEEG). We used signature pedagogy as a framework to analyze and interpret the data.

RESULTS

We identified pervasive and characteristic forms of cEEG teaching. Teaching is based on apprenticeship, relying on "learning by doing" in the context of real-life clinical practice. There are habitual steps that learners take to anchor teaching, which typically occurs during rounds. There is a common language and core knowledge that trainees need to master early in their training.

CONCLUSIONS

There are pervasive characteristic forms of cEEG teaching. These findings can help facilitate instructional design and implementation of complementary or enhanced cEEG teaching practices.

Electroencephalogram in the intensive care unit: a focused look at acute brain injury

Over the past decades, electroencephalography (EEG) has become a widely applied and highly sophisticated brain monitoring tool in a variety of intensive care unit (ICU) settings. The most common indication for EEG monitoring currently is the management of refractory status epilepticus. In addition, a number of studies have associated frequent seizures, including nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE), with worsening secondary brain injury and with worse outcomes. With the widespread utilization of EEG (spot and continuous EEG), rhythmic and periodic patterns that do not fulfill strict seizure criteria have been identified, epidemiologically quantified, and linked to pathophysiological events across a wide spectrum of critical and acute illnesses, including acute brain injury. Increasingly, EEG is not just qualitatively described, but also quantitatively analyzed together with other modalities to generate innovative measurements with possible clinical relevance. In this review, we discuss the current knowledge and emerging applications of EEG in the ICU, including seizure detection, ischemia monitoring, detection of cortical spreading depolarizations, assessment of consciousness and prognostication. We also review some technical aspects and challenges of using EEG in the ICU including the logistics of setting up ICU EEG monitoring in resource-limited settings.

Quantitative EEG-Based Seizure Estimation in Super-Refractory Status Epilepticus

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of seizure burden in patients with super-refractory status epilepticus (SRSE) by using quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG).

METHODS

EEG recordings from 69 patients with SRSE (2009-2019) were reviewed and annotated for seizures by three groups of reviewers: two board-certified neurophysiologists using only raw EEG (gold standard), two neurocritical care providers with substantial experience in qEEG analysis (qEEG experts), and two inexperienced qEEG readers (qEEG novices) using only a qEEG trend panel.

RESULTS

Raw EEG experts identified 35 (51%) patients with seizures, accounting for 2950 seizures (3,126 min). qEEG experts had a sensitivity of 93%, a specificity of 61%, a false positive rate of 6.5 per day, and good agreement (κ = 0.64) between both qEEG experts. qEEG novices had a sensitivity of 98.5%, a specificity of 13%, a false positive rate of 15 per day, and fair agreement (κ = 0.4) between both qEEG novices. Seizure burden was not different between the qEEG experts and the gold standard (3,257 vs. 3,126 min), whereas qEEG novices reported higher burden (6066 vs. 3126 min).

CONCLUSIONS

Both qEEG experts and novices had a high sensitivity but a low specificity for seizure detection in patients with SRSE. qEEG could be a useful tool for qEEG experts to estimate seizure burden in patients with SRSE.