Person:

Bianchi, Matt Travis

Functional connectivity networks have become a central focus in neuroscience because they reveal key higher-dimensional features of normal and abnormal nervous system physiology. Functional networks reflect activity-based coupling between brain regions that may be constrained by relatively static anatomical connections, yet these networks appear to support tremendously dynamic behaviors. Within this growing field, the stability and temporal characteristics of functional connectivity brain networks have not been well characterized. We evaluated the temporal stability of spontaneous functional connectivity networks derived from multi-day scalp encephalogram (EEG) recordings in five healthy human subjects. Topological stability and graph characteristics of networks derived from averaged data epochs ranging from 1 s to multiple hours across different states of consciousness were compared. We show that, although functional networks are highly variable on the order of seconds, stable network templates emerge after as little as ∼100 s of recording and persist across different states and frequency bands (albeit with slightly different characteristics in different states and frequencies). Within these network templates, the most common edges are markedly consistent, constituting a network “core.” Although average network topologies persist across time, measures of global network connectivity, density and clustering coefficient, are state and frequency specific, with sparsest but most highly clustered networks seen during sleep and in the gamma frequency band. These findings support the notion that a core functional organization underlies spontaneous cortical processing and may provide a reference template on which unstable, transient, and rapidly adaptive long-range assemblies are overlaid in a frequency-dependent manner.

Objective: To characterize the risk for seizures over time in relation to EEG findings in hospitalized adults undergoing continuous EEG monitoring (cEEG).

Methods: Retrospective analysis of cEEG data and medical records from 625 consecutive adult inpatients monitored at a tertiary medical center. Using survival analysis methods, we estimated the time-dependent probability that a seizure will occur within the next 72-h, if no seizure has occurred yet, as a function of EEG abnormalities detected so far.

Results: Seizures occurred in 27% (168/625). The first seizure occurred early (<30 min of monitoring) in 58% (98/168). In 527 patients without early seizures, 159 (30%) had early epileptiform abnormalities, versus 368 (70%) without. Seizures were eventually detected in 25% of patients with early epileptiform discharges, versus 8% without early discharges. The 72-h risk of seizures declined below 5% if no epileptiform abnormalities were present in the first two hours, whereas 16 h of monitoring were required when epileptiform discharges were present. 20% (74/388) of patients without early epileptiform abnormalities later developed them; 23% (17/74) of these ultimately had seizures. Only 4% (12/294) experienced a seizure without preceding epileptiform abnormalities.

Conclusions: Seizure risk in acute neurological illness decays rapidly, at a rate dependent on abnormalities detected early during monitoring. This study demonstrates that substantial risk stratification is possible based on early EEG abnormalities.

Significance: These findings have implications for patient-specific determination of the required duration of cEEG monitoring in hospitalized patients.

Purpose: Persistent uncertainty over the clinical significance of various pathological continuous electroencephalography (cEEG) findings in the intensive care unit (ICU) has prompted efforts to standardize ICU cEEG terminology and an ensuing debate. We set out to understand the reasons for, and a satisfactory resolution to, this debate.

Method: We review the positions for and against standardization, and examine their deeper philosophical basis.

Results: We find that the positions for and against standardization are not fundamentally irreconcilable. Rather, both positions stem from conflating the three cardinal steps in the classic approach to EEG, which we term “description”, “interpretation”, and “prescription”. Using real-world examples we show how this conflation yields muddled clinical reasoning and unproductive debate among electroencephalographers that is translated into confusion among treating clinicians. We propose a middle way that judiciously uses both standardized terminology and clinical reasoning to disentangle these critical steps and apply them in proper sequence.

Conclusion: The systematic approach to ICU cEEG findings presented herein not only resolves the standardization debate but also clarifies clinical reasoning by helping electroencephalographers assign appropriate weights to cEEG findings in the face of uncertainty.