Background: It is not clear whether performing continuous EEG (cEEG) in critically ill patients during intensive care unit (ICU) treatment affects outcomes at discharge. Material/Methods: We prospectively matched 234 patients who received cEEG (cases) by admission diagnosis and sex to 234 patients who did not receive cEEG (controls) and followed them until discharge. Patients admitted due to seizures were excluded. The primary measures of outcome were Glasgow Coma Scale at Discharge (GCSD) and disposition at discharge, and the secondary measures of outcome were AED modifications, Glasgow Outcomes Scale, and Modified-Rankin Scale. These outcomes were compared between the cases and controls. Results: Some differences in primary outcome measures between the groups emerged on univariate analyses, but these differences were small and not significant after controlling for covariates. Cases had longer ICU stays (p=0.002) and lower admission GCS (p=0.01) but similar GCSD (p=0.10). Of the secondary outcome measures, the mean (SD) number of AED modifications for cases was 2.2±3.1 compared to 0.4±0.8 for controls (p<0.0001); 170 (72.6%) cases had at least 1 AED modification compared to only 56 (24.1%) of the controls (p<0.0001). Conclusions: Performing cEEG did not improve discharge outcome but it significantly influenced AED prescription patterns. Further studies assessing long-term outcomes are needed to better define the role of cEEG in this patient population.
|Number of pages||10|
|Journal||Medical Science Monitor|
|State||Published - Feb 4 2017|
- Intensive care units
- Patient outcome assessment