Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology最新文献

Purpose: Neurologic involvement is commonly reported in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients. The published literature regarding the COVID-19-related neurophysiological findings, including the EEG findings, is still quite limited. The objective of this study was to evaluate the EEG findings in patients with a COVID-19 infection and look for a possible correlations and prognosis.

Methods: This is an inpatient hospital-based retrospective observational study. All admitted COVID-19 patients undergoing an EEG study between January 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021 were included in this study. EEG was ordered by the primary intensive care physician or a neurologist taking part in the clinical care of patients.

Results: Sixty-six EEG studies in 57 patients were included. Mean age was 62.2 ± 16.3 years with male predominance (65%). Encephalopathy (70%) was the most common indication for an EEG. Background EEG abnormalities were seen in most of the patients (92.4%) with severe abnormalities correlating with the prognosis of the patient. Epileptiform discharges were only seen in 7.5% of the EEGs, with majority of the discharges arising from the frontal region. Mortality reported was high (47%).

Conclusions: Nonspecific diffuse background EEG abnormalities are commonly seen in COVID-19 patients. Epileptiform discharges are less common but mostly originate from frontal region. Most of these patients also had an abnormal neuroimaging. The significance of this peculiar finding needs further research.

Significance: Nonspecific background EEG changes are common in COVID-19 patients. Among epileptiform discharges, focal epileptiform discharges arising from the frontal region were common, usually associated with an abnormal neuroimaging.

Purpose: This study reports our center's initial experience with the use of low-frequency stimulation in provoking stimulation-induced seizures (SIS) in children with drug-resistant epilepsy undergoing stereo-EEG evaluations.

Methods: This retrospective study enrolled children aged 2 to 18 years with drug-resistant focal epilepsy who underwent stereo-EEG evaluation and extraoperative direct electrical cortical stimulation to elicit seizures. The low-frequency stimulation parameters consisted of biphasic square waveforms at frequency of 1 Hz, pulse width 1 millisecond, current 1 to 3 mA, and train duration of 20 seconds. Various epilepsy-related, imaging, neurophysiology, and surgery-related variables were collected and summarized.

Results: Fourteen children (mean age 13 years; 57.1% girls) were included, 10 of whom had unilateral stereo-EEG coverage. Cortical stimulation for provoking seizures was performed after a median of 5 days after electrode implantation. The median number of electrode-contacts stimulated per patient was 42. Four patients (28.6%) experienced habitual SIS (all extratemporal). The etiology in three patients was focal cortical dysplasia. Interictal high-frequency oscillations at electrode-contacts provoking SIS were observed in three cases (75%). Two of these individuals (50%) had class 1 International League Against Epilepsy seizure outcome at last follow-up, after the resection of the brain regions generating SIS.

Conclusions: Low-frequency (1-Hz) stimulation could provoke habitual SIS in nearly one-fourth of children with focal epilepsy undergoing stereo-EEG monitoring. This study provides a limited pediatric experience with the low-frequency cortical stimulation and SIS.

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.

Introduction: This study examines the usability and comfort of a behind-the-ear seizure detection device called brain seizure detection (BrainSD) that captures ictal electroencephalogram (EEG) data using four scalp electrodes.

Methods: This is a feasibility study. Thirty-two patients admitted to a level 4 Epilepsy Monitoring Unit were enrolled. The subjects wore BrainSD and the standard 21-channel video-EEG simultaneously. Epileptologists analyzed the EEG signals collected by BrainSD and validated it using video-EEG data to confirm its accuracy. A poststudy survey was completed by each participant to evaluate the comfort and usability of the device. In addition, a focus group of UT Southwestern epileptologists was held to discuss the features they would like to see in a home EEG-based seizure detection device such as BrainSD.

Results: In total, BrainSD captured 11 of the 14 seizures that occurred while the device was being worn. All 11 seizures captured on BrainSD had focal onset, with three becoming bilateral tonic-clonic and one seizure being of subclinical status. The device was worn for an average of 41 hours. The poststudy survey showed that most users found the device comfortable, easy-to-use, and stated they would be interested in using BrainSD. Epileptologists in the focus group expressed a similar interest in BrainSD.

Conclusions: Brain seizure detection is able to detect EEG signals using four behind-the-ear electrodes. Its comfort, ease-of-use, and ability to detect numerous types of seizures make BrainSD an acceptable at-home EEG detection device from both the patient and provider perspective.

Summary: Similar to adults, children undergoing brain surgery can significantly benefit from intraoperative neurophysiologic mapping and monitoring. Although young brains present the advantage of increased plasticity, during procedures in close proximity to eloquent regions, the risk of irreversible neurological compromise remains and can be lowered further by these techniques. More so, pathologies specific to the pediatric population, such as neurodevelopmental lesions, often result in medically refractory epilepsy. Thus, their successful surgical treatment also relies on accurate demarcation and resection of the epileptogenic zone, processes in which intraoperative electrocorticography is often employed. However, stemming from the development and maturation of the central and peripheral nervous systems as the child grows, intraoperative neurophysiologic testing in this population poses methodologic and interpretative challenges even to experienced clinical neurophysiologists. For example, it is difficult to perform awake craniotomies and language testing in the majority of pediatric patients. In addition, children may be more prone to intraoperative seizures and exhibit afterdischarges more frequently during functional mapping using electrical cortical stimulation because of high stimulation thresholds needed to depolarize immature cortex. Moreover, choice of anesthetic regimen and doses may be different in pediatric patients, as is the effect of these drugs on immature brain; these factors add additional complexity in terms of interpretation and analysis of neurophysiologic recordings. Below, we are describing the modalities commonly used during intraoperative neurophysiologic testing in pediatric brain surgery, with emphasis on age-specific clinical indications, methodology, and challenges.

Purpose: Iatrogenic injury to sacral nerve roots poses significant quality of life issues for patients. Motor evoked potential (MEP) monitoring can be used for intraoperative surveillance of these important structures. We hypothesized that volume conducted depolarizations from gluteus maximus (GM) may contaminate external anal sphincter (EAS) MEP results during lumbosacral spine surgery.

Methods: Motor evoked potential from the EAS and medial GM in 40 patients were prospectively assessed for inter-muscle volume conduction during lumbosacral spine surgeries. Peak latency matching between the EAS and GM MEP recordings conditionally identified volume conduction (VC+) or no volume conduction (VC-). Linear regression and power spectral density analysis of EAS and medial GM MEP amplitudes were performed from VC+ and VC- data pairs to confirm intermuscle electrical cross-talk.

Results: Motor evoked potential peak latency matching identified putative VC+ in 9 of 40 patients (22.5%). Mean regression coefficients (r2) from peak-to-peak EAS and medial GM MEP amplitude plots were 0.83 ± 0.04 for VC+ and 0.34 ± 0.06 for VC- MEP (P < 0.001). Power spectral density analysis identified the major frequency component in the MEP responses. The mean frequency difference between VC+ EAS and medial GM MEP responses were 0.4 ± 0.2 Hz compared with 3.5 ± 0.6 Hz for VC- MEP (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Our data support using peak latency matching between EAS and GM MEP to identify spurious MEP results because of intermuscle volume conduction. Neuromonitorists should be aware of this possible cross-muscle conflict to avoid interpretation errors during lumbosacral procedures using EAS MEP.

Purpose: Central, peripheral, and root motor conduction times (CMCTs, PMCTs, and RMCTs, respectively) are valuable diagnostic tools for spinal cord and motor nerve root lesions. We investigated the normal values and the effects of age and height on each motor conduction time.

Methods: This study included 190 healthy Korean subjects who underwent magnetic stimulation of the cortex and spinous processes at the C7 and L1 levels. Recording muscles were abductor pollicis brevis and abductor digiti minimi in the unilateral upper limb and extensor digitorum brevis and abductor hallucis in the contralateral lower limb. F-wave and compound motor nerve action potentials were also recorded. Central motor conduction time was evaluated as the difference between cortical motor evoked potential onset latency and PMCT using calculation and spinal stimulation methods. Root motor conduction time was computed as the difference between spinal stimulated and calculated CMCTs.

Results: The average age and height of the participants were 41.21 ± 14.39 years and 164.64 ± 8.27 cm, respectively; 39.5% (75/190) patients were men. In the linear regression analyses, upper limb CMCTs showed a significant and weak positive relationship with height. Lower limb CMCTs demonstrated a significant and weak positive relationship with age and height. Peripheral motor conduction times were significantly and positively correlated with age and height. Root motor conduction times showed no significant relationship with age and height, except for abductor pollicis brevis-RMCT, which had a weak negative correlation with height.

Conclusions: This study provides normal values of CMCTs, PMCTs, and RCMTs, which have potential clinical applications. When interpreting CMCTs, age and height should be considered.