From the Department of Neurology (C.E.H., L.J.B., D.T., K.A.D., N.D., B.L., A.W.W.), Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (C.E.H., N.D., A.W.W.), Translational Center of Excellence for Neurology Outcomes Research, Department of Neurology (D.T., A.W.W.), and Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics (A.W.W.), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Neurology. 2019 Jan 1;92(1):e9-e18. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000006689. Epub 2018 Nov 30.
To characterize continuous EEG (cEEG) use patterns in the critically ill and to determine the association with hospitalization outcomes for specific diagnoses.
We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study with National Inpatient Sample data from 2004 to 2013. We sampled hospitalized adult patients who received intensive care and then compared patients who underwent cEEG to those who did not. We considered diagnostic subgroups of seizure/status epilepticus, subarachnoid or intracerebral hemorrhage, and altered consciousness. Outcomes were in-hospital mortality, hospitalization cost, and length of stay.
In total, 7,102,399 critically ill patients were identified, of whom 22,728 received cEEG. From 2004 to 2013, the proportion of patients who received cEEG increased from 0.06% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.03%-0.09%) to 0.80% (95% CI 0.62%-0.98%). While the cEEG cohort appeared more ill, cEEG use was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality after adjustment for patient and hospital characteristics (odds ratio [OR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.75-0.93, < 0.001). This finding held for the diagnoses of subarachnoid or intracerebral hemorrhage and for altered consciousness but not for the seizure/status epilepticus subgroup. Cost and length of hospitalization were increased for the cEEG cohort (OR 1.17 and OR 1.11, respectively, < 0.001).
There was a >10-fold increase in cEEG use from 2004 to 2013. However, this procedure may still be underused; cEEG was associated with lower in-hospital mortality but used for only 0.3% of the critically ill population. While administrative claims analysis supports the utility of cEEG for critically ill patients, our findings suggest variable benefit by diagnosis, and investigation with greater clinical detail is warranted.
描述危重症患者连续脑电图(cEEG)的使用模式,并确定其与特定诊断的住院结局的关联。
我们进行了一项回顾性横断面研究,使用了 2004 年至 2013 年期间的国家住院患者样本数据。我们抽取了接受重症监护的住院成年患者,并将接受 cEEG 的患者与未接受 cEEG 的患者进行了比较。我们考虑了癫痫发作/癫痫持续状态、蛛网膜下腔或脑内出血以及意识改变的诊断亚组。结局包括住院死亡率、住院费用和住院时间。
共确定了 7102399 名危重症患者,其中 22728 名患者接受了 cEEG。从 2004 年到 2013 年,接受 cEEG 的患者比例从 0.06%(95%置信区间[CI]0.03%-0.09%)增加到 0.80%(95%CI0.62%-0.98%)。虽然 cEEG 组患者的病情似乎更严重,但在调整了患者和医院特征后,cEEG 的使用与住院死亡率的降低相关(比值比[OR]0.83,95%CI0.75-0.93,<0.001)。这一发现对于蛛网膜下腔或脑内出血以及意识改变的诊断成立,但对于癫痫发作/癫痫持续状态亚组则不成立。cEEG 组的住院费用和住院时间增加(比值比分别为 1.17 和 1.11,均<0.001)。
从 2004 年到 2013 年,cEEG 的使用增加了 10 倍以上。然而,该程序可能仍未得到充分利用;cEEG 与较低的住院死亡率相关,但仅用于 0.3%的危重症患者。尽管行政索赔分析支持 cEEG 对危重症患者的效用,但我们的发现表明,其诊断获益存在差异,需要进一步进行更详细的临床研究。