Purpose:Studies examining seizures (Szs) and epileptiform abnormalities (EAs) using continuous EEG in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) are limited. Therefore, we aimed to describe the prevalence of Sz and EA in AIS, its impact on anti-Sz drug management, and association with discharge outcomes.Methods:The study included 132 patients with AIS who underwent continuous EEG monitoring >6 hours. Continuous EEG was reviewed for background, Sz and EA (lateralized periodic discharges [LPD], generalized periodic discharges, lateralized rhythmic delta activity, and sporadic epileptiform discharges). Relevant clinical, demographic, and imaging factors were abstracted to identify risk factors for Sz and EA. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, functional outcome at discharge (good outcome as modified Rankin scale of 0-2 and poor outcome as modified Rankin scale of 3-6) and changes to anti-Sz drugs (escalation or de-escalation).Results:The frequency of Sz was 7.6%, and EA was 37.9%. Patients with Sz or EA were more likely to have cortical involvement (84.6% vs. 67.5% P = 0.028). Among the EAs, the presence of LPD was associated with an increased risk of Sz (25.9% in LPD vs. 2.9% without LPD, P = 0.001). Overall, 21.2% patients had anti-Sz drug changes because of continuous EEG findings, 16.7% escalation and 4.5% de-escalation. The presence of EA or Sz was not associated with in-hospital mortality or discharge functional outcomes.Conclusions:Despite the high incidence of EA, the rate of Sz in AIS is relatively lower and is associated with the presence of LPDs. These continuous EEG findings resulted in anti-Sz drug changes in one-fifth of the cohort. Epileptiform abnormality and Sz did not affect mortality or discharge functional outcomes.

In the early 2000s, a subcommittee of the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society (ACNS) set out to “standardize terminology of periodic and rhythmic EEG patterns in the critically ill to aid in future research involving such patterns.” The initial proposed terminology was published in 2005.1 This was presented at many meetings on several continents, subjected to multiple rounds of testing of interrater reliability, underwent many revisions, and was then published as an ACNS guideline in 2013.2 Interrater agreement of the 2012 version (published in early 2013) was very good, with almost perfect agreement for seizures, main terms 1 and 2, the +S modifier, sharpness, absolute amplitude, frequency, and number of phases.3 Agreement was substantial for the +F and +R modifiers (66% and 67%) but was only moderate for triphasic morphology (58%) and fair for evolution (21%, likely at least partly because of the short EEG samples provided).3 The authors concluded that interrater agreement for most terms in the ACNS critical care EEG terminology was high and that these terms were suitable for multicenter research on the clinical significance of these critical care EEG patterns.

Objective: To determine the inter-rater agreement (IRA) of a standardized nomenclature for EEG spectrogram patterns, and to estimate the probability distribution of ictal-interictal continuum (IIC) patterns vs. other EEG patterns within each category in this nomenclature. Methods: We defined seven spectrogram categories: “Solid Flames”, “Irregular Flames”, “Broadband-monotonous”, “Narrowband-monotonous”, “Stripes”, “Low power”, and “Artifact”. Ten electroencephalographers scored 115 spectrograms and the corresponding raw EEG samples. Gwet's agreement coefficient was used to calculate IRA. Results: Solid Flames represented seizures or IIC patterns 69.4% of the time. Irregular Flames represented seizures or IIC patterns 38.7% of the time. Broadband-monotonous primarily corresponded with seizures or IIC (54.3%) and Narrowband-monotonous with focal or generalized slowing (43.8%). Stripes were associated with burst-suppression (37.2%) and generalized suppression (34.4%). Low Power category was associated with generalized suppression (94%). There was “near perfect” agreement for Solid Flames (κ = 94.36), Low power (κ = 92.61), and Artifact (κ = 93.72). There was “substantial agreement” for all other categories (κ = 74.65–79.49). Conclusions: This EEG spectrogram nomenclature has high IRA among electroencephalographers. Significance: The nomenclature can be a useful tool for EEG screening. Future studies are needed to determine if using this nomenclature shortens time to IIC identification, and how best to use it in practice to reduce time to intervention.

Objectives: Seizures and seizure-like electroencephalography (EEG) patterns, collectively referred to as “ictal interictal injury continuum” (IIIC) patterns, are commonly encountered in critically ill patients. Automated detection is important for patient care and to enable research. However, training accurate detectors requires a large labeled dataset. Active Learning (AL) may help select informative examples to label, but the optimal AL approach remains unclear. Methods: We assembled >200,000 h of EEG from 1,454 hospitalized patients. From these, we collected 9,808 labeled and 120,000 unlabeled 10-second EEG segments. Labels included 6 IIIC patterns. In each AL iteration, a Dense-Net Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) learned vector representations for EEG segments using available labels, which were used to create a 2D embedding map. Nearest-neighbor label spreading within the embedding map was used to create additional pseudo-labeled data. A second Dense-Net was trained using real- and pseudo-labels. We evaluated several strategies for selecting candidate points for experts to label next. Finally, we compared two methods for class balancing within queries: standard balanced-based querying (SBBQ), and high confidence spread-based balanced querying (HCSBBQ). Results: Our results show: 1) Label spreading increased convergence speed for AL. 2) All query criteria produced similar results to random sampling. 3) HCSBBQ query balancing performed best. Using label spreading and HCSBBQ query balancing, we were able to train models approaching expert-level performance across all pattern categories after obtaining ∼7000 expert labels. Conclusion: Our results provide guidance regarding the use of AL to efficiently label large EEG datasets in critically ill patients.

Objective: To compare machine learning methods for predicting inpatient seizures risk and determine the feasibility of 1-h screening EEG to identify low-risk patients (<5% seizures risk in 48 h). Methods: The Critical Care EEG Monitoring Research Consortium (CCEMRC) multicenter database contains 7716 continuous EEGs (cEEG). Neural networks (NN), elastic net logistic regression (EN), and sparse linear integer model (RiskSLIM) were trained to predict seizures. RiskSLIM was used previously to generate 2HELPS2B model of seizure predictions. Data were divided into training (60% for model fitting) and evaluation (40% for model evaluation) cohorts. Performance was measured using area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), mean risk calibration (CAL), and negative predictive value (NPV). A secondary analysis was performed using Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) to normalize all EEG recordings to 48 h and use only the first hour of EEG as a “screening EEG” to generate predictions. Results: RiskSLIM recreated the 2HELPS2B model. All models had comparable AUC: evaluation cohort (NN: 0.85, EN: 0.84, 2HELPS2B: 0.83) and MCS (NN: 0.82, EN; 0.82, 2HELPS2B: 0.81) and NPV (absence of seizures in the group that the models predicted to be low risk): evaluation cohort (NN: 97%, EN: 97%, 2HELPS2B: 97%) and MCS (NN: 97%, EN: 99%, 2HELPS2B: 97%). 2HELPS2B model was able to identify the largest proportion of low-risk patients. Interpretation: For seizure risk stratification of hospitalized patients, the RiskSLIM generated 2HELPS2B model compares favorably to the complex NN and EN generated models. 2HELPS2B is able to accurately and quickly identify low-risk patients with only a 1-h screening EEG.

Objective: To determine the clinical correlates bilateral independent periodic discharges (BIPDs) and their association with electrographic seizures and outcome. Methods: Retrospective case-control study of patients with BIPDs compared to patients without periodic discharges (“No PDs”) and patients with lateralized periodic discharges (“LPDs”), matched for age, etiology and level of alertness. Results: We included 85 cases and 85 controls in each group. The most frequent etiologies of BIPDs were stroke, CNS infections, and anoxic brain injury. Acute bilateral cerebral injury was more common in the BIPDs group than in the No PDs and LPDs groups (70% vs. 37% vs. 35%). Electrographic seizures were more common with BIPDs than in the absence of PDs (45% vs. 8%), but not than with LPDs (52%). Mortality was higher in the BIPDs group (36%) than in the No PDs group (18%), with fewer patients with BIPDs achieving good outcome (moderate disability or better; 18% vs. 36%), but not than in the LPDs group (24% mortality, 26% good outcome). In multivariate analyses, BIPDs remained associated with mortality (OR: 3.0 [1.4–6.4]) and poor outcome (OR: 2.9 [1.4–6.2]). Conclusion: BIPDs are caused by bilateral acute brain injury and are associated with a high risk of electrographic seizures and of poor outcome. Significance: BIPDs are uncommon but their identification in critically ill patients has potential important implications, both in terms of clinical management and prognostication.