Neurologic manifestations of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) such as encephalopathy and seizures have been described. To our knowledge, detailed EEG findings in COVID-19have not yet been reported. This report adds to the scarce body of evidence.Methods: We identified eight COVID-19 positive patients who underwent EEG monitoring in our hospital system.Results: EEGs were most commonly ordered for an altered level of consciousness, a nonspecific neurologic manifestation. We observed generalized background slowing in all patients and generalized epileptiform discharges with triphasic morphology in three patients. Focal electrographic seizures were observed in one patient with a history of focal epilepsy and in another patient with no such history. Five of eight patients had a previous diagnosis of epilepsy, suggesting that pre-existing epilepsy can be a potential risk factor for COVID-19-associated neurological manifestations. Five of eight patients who underwent EEG experienced a fatal outcome of infection.Conclusions: Our findings underscore previous observations that neurologic manifestations are common in severe cases. COVID-19 patients with epilepsy may have an increased risk of neurological manifestations and abnormal EEG.
BackgroundApproximately 1/3 of patients with epilepsy have drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) and require surgical interventions. This meta-analysis aimed to review the effectiveness of MRI-guided laser interstitial thermal therapy (MRgLITT) in DRE.MethodsThe Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome approach and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses were followed. PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for English language publications from 2012 to Nov 2020. Data on the prevalence outcome using the Engel Epilepsy Surgery Outcome Scale (Class I–IV), and postoperative complications were analysed with 95% CIs.ResultsTwenty-eight studies that included a total of 559 patients with DRE were identified. The overall prevalence of Engel class I outcome was 56% (95% CI 0.52% to 0.60%). Hypothalamic hamartomas (HH) patients had the highest seizure freedom rate of 67% (95% CI 0.57% to 0.76%) and outcome was overall comparable between mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (mTLE) (56%, 95% CI 0.50% to 0.61%) and extratemporal epilepsy (50% 95% CI 0.40% to 0.59%). The mTLE cases with mesial temporal sclerosis had better outcome vs non-lesional cases of mTLE. The prevalence of postoperative adverse events was 19% (95% CI 0.14% to 0.25%) and the most common adverse event was visual field deficits. The reoperation rate was 9% (95% CI 0.05% to 0.14%), which included repeat ablation and open resection.ConclusionMRgLITT is an effective and safe intervention for DRE with different disease aetiologies. The seizure freedom outcome is overall comparable in between extratemporal and temporal lobe epilepsy; and highest with HH.Trail registration numberThe study protocol was registered with the National Institute for Health Research (CRD42019126365), which serves as a prospective register of systematic reviews. It is an international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews with a focus on health-related outcomes. Details about the protocol can be found at https://wwwcrdyorkacuk/PROSPERO/.
Over 15 million epilepsy patients worldwide have drug-resistant epilepsy. Successful surgery is a standard of care treatment but can only be achieved through complete resection or disconnection of the epileptogenic zone, the brain region(s) where seizures originate. Surgical success rates vary between 20% and 80%, because no clinically validated biological markers of the epileptogenic zone exist. Localizing the epileptogenic zone is a costly and time-consuming process, which often requires days to weeks of intracranial EEG (iEEG) monitoring. Clinicians visually inspect iEEG data to identify abnormal activity on individual channels occurring immediately before seizures or spikes that occur interictally (i.e. between seizures). In the end, the clinical standard mainly relies on a small proportion of the iEEG data captured to assist in epileptogenic zone localization (minutes of seizure data versus days of recordings), missing opportunities to leverage these largely ignored interictal data to better diagnose and treat patients. IEEG offers a unique opportunity to observe epileptic cortical network dynamics but waiting for seizures increases patient risks associated with invasive monitoring. In this study, we aimed to leverage interictal iEEG data by developing a new network-based interictal iEEG marker of the epileptogenic zone. We hypothesized that when a patient is not clinically seizing, it is because the epileptogenic zone is inhibited by other regions. We developed an algorithm that identifies two groups of nodes from the interictal iEEG network: those that are continuously inhibiting a set of neighbouring nodes (‘sources’) and the inhibited nodes themselves (‘sinks’). Specifically, patient-specific dynamical network models were estimated from minutes of iEEG and their connectivity properties revealed top sources and sinks in the network, with each node being quantified by source-sink metrics. We validated the algorithm in a retrospective analysis of 65 patients. The source-sink metrics identified epileptogenic regions with 73% accuracy and clinicians agreed with the algorithm in 93% of seizure-free patients. The algorithm was further validated by using the metrics of the annotated epileptogenic zone to predict surgical outcomes. The source-sink metrics predicted outcomes with an accuracy of 79% compared to an accuracy of 43% for clinicians’ predictions (surgical success rate of this dataset). In failed outcomes, we identified brain regions with high metrics that were untreated. When compared with high frequency oscillations, the most commonly proposed interictal iEEG feature for epileptogenic zone localization, source-sink metrics outperformed in predictive power (by a factor of 1.2), suggesting they may be an interictal iEEG fingerprint of the epileptogenic zone.
General anaesthesia for obstetric surgery has distinct characteristics that may contribute towards a higher risk of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the incidence, experience and psychological implications of unintended conscious awareness during general anaesthesia in obstetric patients. From May 2017 to August 2018, 3115 consenting patients receiving general anaesthesia for obstetric surgery in 72 hospitals in England were recruited to the study. Patients received three repetitions of standardised questioning over 30 days, with responses indicating memories during general anaesthesia that were verified using interviews and record interrogation. A total of 12 patients had certain/ probable or possible awareness, an incidence of 1 in 256 (95%CI 149-500) for all obstetric surgery. The incidence was 1 in 212 (95%CI 122-417) for caesarean section surgery. Distressing experiences were reported by seven (58.3%) patients, paralysis by five (41.7%) and paralysis with pain by two (16.7%). Accidental awareness occurred during induction and emergence in nine (75%) of the patients who reported awareness. Factors associated with accidental awareness during general anaesthesia were: high BMI (25-30 kg.m -2 ); low BMI (<18.5 kg.m -2 ); out-of-hours surgery; and use of ketamine or thiopental for induction. Standardised psychological impact scores at 30 days were significantly higher in awareness patients (median (IQR [range]) 15 (2.7-52.0 [2-56]) than in patients without awareness 3 (1-9 [0-64]), p = 0.010. Four patients had a provisional diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. We conclude that direct postoperative questioning reveals high rates of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia for obstetric surgery, which has implications for anaesthetic practice, consent and follow-up.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.