Developing a Standardized Approach to Grading the Level of Brain Dysfunction on EEG.

Publisher: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 8506708 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1537-1603 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 07360258 NLM ISO Abbreviation: J Clin Neurophysiol Subsets: MEDLINE

Publication: <2000->: Hagerstown, MD : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Original Publication: [New York, N.Y.] : Raven Press, [1984-

Electroencephalography* ; Brain Diseases*; Humans ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Critical Care ; Brain ; Observer Variation

Purpose: To assess variability in interpretation of electroencephalogram (EEG) background activity and qualitative grading of cerebral dysfunction based on EEG findings, including which EEG features are deemed most important in this determination.
Methods: A web-based survey (Qualtrics) was disseminated to electroencephalographers practicing in institutions participating in the Critical Care EEG Monitoring Research Consortium between May 2017 and August 2018. Respondents answered 12 questions pertaining to their training and EEG interpretation practices and graded 40 EEG segments (15-second epochs depicting patients' most stimulated state) using a 6-grade scale. Fleiss' Kappa statistic evaluated interrater agreement.
Results: Of 110 respondents, 78.2% were attending electroencephalographers with a mean of 8.3 years of experience beyond training. Despite 83% supporting the need for a standardized approach to interpreting the degree of dysfunction on EEG, only 13.6% used a previously published or an institutional grading scale. The overall interrater agreement was fair ( k = 0.35). Having Critical Care EEG Monitoring Research Consortium nomenclature certification (40.9%) or EEG board certification (70%) did not improve interrater agreement ( k = 0.26). Predominant awake frequencies and posterior dominant rhythm were ranked as the most important variables in grading background dysfunction, followed by continuity and reactivity.
Conclusions: Despite the preference for a standardized grading scale for background EEG interpretation, the lack of interrater agreement on levels of dysfunction even among experienced academic electroencephalographers unveils a barrier to the widespread use of EEG as a clinical and research neuromonitoring tool. There was reasonable agreement on the features that are most important in this determination. A standardized approach to grading cerebral dysfunction, currently used by the authors, and based on this work, is proposed.
Competing Interests: C. B. Maciel has received funding from Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center and American Heart Association. M. B. Dhakar has received funding from the National Institutes of Health (R21- NS116726-01), American Epilepsy Society, and research money for clinical trials from Marinus Pharmaceuticals and Parexel Biopharmaceuticals. She has received honoraria for consulting for Adamas Pharmaceuticals. N. Rampal serves as consultant at Alexion Pharmaceuticals. L. J. Hirsch has received consultation fees for advising from Accure, Aquestive, Ceribell, Marinus, Medtronic, Neurelis, Neuropace, and UCB; royalties from Wolters-Kluwer for authoring chapters for UpToDate-Neurology and from Wiley for coauthoring the book “Atlas of EEG in Critical Care,” by Hirsch and Brenner; and honoraria for speaking from Neuropace and Natus. E. J. Gilmore receives consulting fees from UCB and is a cofounder of IBA (uncompensated). In addition, she receives funding from the National Institutes of Health (R01 NS117904-01). The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
(Copyright © 2022 by the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society.)

Herman ST, Abend NS, Bleck TP, et al. Consensus statement on continuous EEG in critically ill adults and children, part I: indications. J Clin Neurophysiol 2015;32:87–95.
Claassen J, Doyle K, Matory A, et al. Detection of brain activation in unresponsive patients with acute brain injury. New Engl J Med 2019;380:2497–2505.
Sun H, Kimchi E, Akeju O, et al. Automated tracking of level of consciousness and delirium in critical illness using deep learning. NPJ Digit Med 2019;2:89.
Hirsch LJ, LaRoche SM, Gaspard N, et al. American clinical neurophysiology society's standardized critical care EEG terminology: 2012 version. J Clin Neurophysiol 2013;30:1–27.
Hirsch LJ, Fong MW, Leitinger M, et al. American clinical neurophysiology society's standardized critical care EEG terminology: 2021 version. J Clin Neurophysiol 2021;38:1–29.
Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of web surveys: the checklist for reporting results of internet E-surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res 2004;6:e34.
Alvarez V, Drislane FW, Westover MB, Dworetzky BA, Lee JW. Characteristics and role in outcome prediction of continuous EEG after status epilepticus: a prospective observational cohort. Epilepsia 2015;56:933–941.
Selioutski O, Roberts D, Hamilton R, et al. Continuous EEG monitoring predicts a clinically meaningful recovery among adult inpatients. J Clin Neurophysiol 2019;36:358–364.
Beuchat I, Sivaraju A, Amorim E, et al. MRI-EEG correlation for outcome prediction in postanoxic myoclonus: a multicenter study. Neurology 2020;95:e335–e341.
Westhall E, Rossetti AO, van Rootselaar AF, et al. Standardized EEG interpretation accurately predicts prognosis after cardiac arrest. Neurology 2016;86:1482–1490.
Young GB, Blume WT, Campbell VM, et al. Alpha, theta and alpha-theta coma: a clinical outcome study utilizing serial recordings. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1994;91:93–99.
Fleiss JL. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull 1971;76:378–382.
Riffenburgh R. Statistics in medicine. 3rd ed. San Diego: Academic Press, 2012.
Abend NS, Gutierrez-Colina A, Zhao H, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of electroencephalogram interpretation in critically ill children. J Clin Neurophysiol 2011;28:15–19.
Grant AC, Abdel-Baki SG, Weedon J, et al. EEG interpretation reliability and interpreter confidence: a large single-center study. Epilepsy Behav 2014;32:102–107.
Young GB, McLachlan RS, Kreeft JH, Demelo JD. An electroencephalographic classification for coma. Can J Neurol Sci 1997;24:320–325.
Gaspard N, Hirsch LJ, LaRoche SM, Hahn CD, Westover MB. Interrater agreement for critical care EEG terminology. Epilepsia 2014;55:1366–1373.
Available at: https://www.acns.org/research/critical-care-eeg-monitoring-research-consortium-ccemrc/education . Accessed January 20, 2020.
Amodio P, Montagnese S. Clinical neurophysiology of hepatic encephalopathy. J Clin Exp Hepatol 2015;5(suppl 1):S60–S68.
Hockaday JM, Potts F, Epstein E, Bonazzi A, Schwab RS. Electroencephalographic changes in acute cerebral anoxia from cardiac or respiratory arrest. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1965;18:575–586.
Markand ON. Electroencephalography in diffuse encephalopathies. J Clin Neurophysiol 1984;1:357–407.
Synek VM. Prognostically important EEG coma patterns in diffuse anoxic and traumatic encephalopathies in adults. J Clin Neurophysiol 1988;5:161–174.
Synek VM. Value of a revised EEG coma scale for prognosis after cerebral anoxia and diffuse head injury. Clin Electroencephalogr 1990;21:25–30.
Synek VM. EEG abnormality grades and subdivisions of prognostic importance in traumatic and anoxic coma in adults. Clin Electroencephalogr 1988;19:160–166.
Roest A, van Bets B, Jorens PG, Baar I, Weyler J, Mercelis R. The prognostic value of the EEG in postanoxic coma. Neurocrit Care 2009;10:318–325.
Zafar S, Doria J, Karceski S. Should we standardize the EEG classification of mild, moderate, and severe cerebral dysfunction? Epilepsy Behav 2020;112:107332.
Sandroni C, D'Arrigo S, Cacciola S, et al. Prediction of poor neurological outcome in comatose survivors of cardiac arrest: a systematic review. Intensive Care Med 2020;46:1803–1851.
Foreman B, Mahulikar A, Tadi P, et al. Generalized periodic discharges and “triphasic waves”: a blinded evaluation of inter-rater agreement and clinical significance. Clin Neurophysiol 2016;127:1073–1080.
O'Rourke D, Chen PM, Gaspard N, et al. Response rates to anticonvulsant trials in patients with triphasic-wave EEG patterns of uncertain significance. Neurocrit Care 2016;24:233–239.

Date Created: 20220303 Date Completed: 20230904 Latest Revision: 20230904

20230904

10.1097/WNP.0000000000000919

35239553