Does Continuous Video-EEG in Patients With Altered Consciousness Improve Patient Outcome? Current Evidence and Randomized Controlled Trial Design. Issue 5 (September 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rossetti, Andrea O.; Schindler, Kaspar; Alvarez, Vincent; Sutter, Raoul; Novy, Jan; Oddo, Mauro; Warpelin-Decrausaz, Loane; Rüegg, Stephan
• Is Part Of: Journal of clinical neurophysiology. Volume 35:Issue 5(2018)
• Publication Date: 2018-09
• Subjects: Outcome -- Coma -- EEG -- Continuous EEG Randomized Trial in Adults (CERTA); Electroencephalography -- Periodicals; Neurophysiology -- Periodicals; Electroencephalography -- Periodicals; Electroencephalography; Periodicals; 612.805
• DOI: 10.1097/WNP.0000000000000467
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0736-0258

Abstract

Abstract : Summary: Continuous video-EEG is recommended for patients with altered consciousness; as compared to routine EEG (lasting <30 minutes), it improves seizure detection, but is time- and resource-consuming. Although North American centers increasingly implement continuous video-EEG, most other (including European) hospitals have insufficient resources. Only one study suggested that continuous video-EEG could improve outcome in adults, and recent assessments challenge this view. This article reviews current evidence on the added value for continuous video-EEG in clinical terms and describes a design for a prospective study. In a multicenter randomized clinical trial (NCT03129438), adults with a Glasgow Coma Scale ⩽11 will be randomized 1:1 to continuous video-EEG (cEEG) for 30 to 48 hours or 2 routine EEG (rEEG), assessed through standardized American Clinical Neurophysiology Society (ACNS) guidelines. The primary outcome will be mortality at 6 months, assessed blindly. Secondary outcomes will explore functional status at 4 weeks and 6 months, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, infection rates, and hospitalization costs. Using a 2-sided approach with power of 0.8 and a error of 0.05, 2 × 174 patients are needed to detect an absolute survival difference of 14%, suggested by the single available study on the topic. This study should help clarifying whether cEEG has a significant impact on outcome and define its cost effectiveness. If the trial will result positive, it will encourage broader implementation of cEEG with consecutive substantial impact on health care and resource allocations. If not, it may offer a rationale to design a larger trial, and – at least for smaller centers – to avoid widespread implementation of cEEG, rationalizing personnel and device costs.