This study provides Class III evidence that patients with SE receiving IVADs have a higher proportion of infection and an increased risk of death as compared to patients not receiving IVADs.
Introduction The pathophysiology of sepsis-associated delirium is not completely understood and the data on cerebral perfusion in sepsis are conflicting. We tested the hypothesis that cerebral perfusion and selected serum markers of inflammation and delirium differ in septic patients with and without sepsisassociated delirium.
Evidence for an association between antibiotic drugs and symptomatic seizures is low to very low (evidence Class III-IV). Despite this, numerous reports point to an increased risk for symptomatic seizures especially of unsubstituted penicillins, fourth-generation cephalosporins, imipenem, and ciprofloxacin in combination with renal dysfunction, brain lesions, and epilepsy. During administration of such antibiotics in patients with particular predispositions, close monitoring of serum levels is advocated. As most seizures associated with cephalosporins are nonconvulsive, continuous EEG should be considered in patients with altered levels of consciousness.
IMPORTANCE In critically ill patients with altered consciousness, continuous electroencephalogram (cEEG) improves seizure detection, but is resource-consuming compared with routine EEG (rEEG). It is also uncertain whether cEEG has an effect on outcome. OBJECTIVE To assess whether cEEG is associated with reduced mortality compared with rEEG. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The pragmatic multicenter Continuous EEG Randomized Trial in Adults (CERTA) was conducted between 2017 and 2018, with follow-up of 6 months. Outcomes were assessed by interviewers blinded to interventions.The study took place at 4 tertiary hospitals in Switzerland (intensive and intermediate care units). Depending on investigators' availability, we pragmatically recruited critically ill adults having Glasgow Coma Scale scores of 11 or less or Full Outline of Responsiveness score of 12 or less, without recent seizures or status epilepticus. They had cerebral (eg, brain trauma, cardiac arrest, hemorrhage, or stroke) or noncerebral conditions (eg, toxic-metabolic or unknown etiology), and EEG was requested as part of standard care. An independent physician provided emergency informed consent. INTERVENTIONS Participants were randomized 1:1 to cEEG for 30 to 48 hours vs 2 rEEGs (20 minutes each), interpreted according to standardized American Clinical Neurophysiology Society guidelines. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Mortality at 6 months represented the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included interictal and ictal features detection and change in therapy. RESULTS We analyzed 364 patients (33% women; mean [SD] age, 63 [15] years). At 6 months, mortality was 89 of 182 in those with cEEG and 88 of 182 in those with rEEG (adjusted relative risk [RR], 1.02; 95% CI, 0.83-1.26; P = .85). Exploratory comparisons within subgroups stratifying patients according to age, premorbid disability, comorbidities on admission, deeper consciousness reduction, and underlying diagnoses revealed no significant effect modification. Continuous EEG was associated with increased detection of interictal features and seizures (adjusted RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.08-1.15; P = .004 and 3.37; 95% CI, 1.63-7.00; P = .001, respectively) and more frequent adaptations in antiseizure therapy (RR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.12-3.00; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This pragmatic trial shows that in critically ill adults with impaired consciousness and no recent seizure, cEEG leads to increased seizure detection and modification of antiseizure treatment but is not related to improved outcome compared with repeated rEEG. Pending larger studies, rEEG may represent a valid alternative to cEEG in centers with limited resources.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.