Abstract
Objective Electroencephalography (EEG) interpretations through visual (by human raters) and automated (by computer technology) analysis are still not reliable for the diagnosis of non-convulsive status epilepticus (NCSE). This study aimed to identify typical pitfalls in the EEG analysis and make suggestions as to how those pitfalls might be avoided.
Methods We analyzed the EEG recordings of individuals who had clinically confirmed or suspected NCSE. Epileptiform EEG activity during seizures (ictal discharges) were visually analyzed by two independent raters. We investigated whether unreliable EEG visual interpretations quantified by low inter-rater agreement can be predicted by the characteristics of ictal discharges and individuals’ clinical data. In addition, the EEG recordings were automatically analyzed by in-house algorithms. To further explore the causes of unreliable EEG interpretations, two epileptologists analyzed EEG patterns most likely misinterpreted as ictal discharges based on the differences between the EEG interpretations through the visual and automated analysis.
Results Short ictal discharges with a gradual onset (developing over 3 seconds in length) were liable to be misinterpreted. An extra 2 minutes of ictal discharges contributed to an increase in the kappa statistics of > 0.1. Other problems were the misinterpretation of abnormal background activity (slow wave activities, other abnormal brain activity, and the ictal-like movement artifacts), continuous interictal discharges, and continuous short ictal discharges.
Conclusion A longer duration criterion for NCSE-EEGs than 10 seconds that commonly used in NCSE working criteria is needed. Using knowledge of historical EEGs, individualized algorithms, and context-dependent alarm thresholds may also avoid the pitfalls.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
The data were collected from the archived database, therefore this study is not registered as a clinical trial.
Funding Statement
This work is part of the research program BrainWave with project number 14714, which is (partly) financed by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study is approved by Dutch committee on research involving human participants on 28th March 2017 [De Medisch Ethische Toetsingscommissie van Kempenhaeghe (17.04)].
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Abbreviation description in Table 1 added
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from Academic Center for Epileptology Kempenhaeghe, Heeze, the Netherlands. Restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for this study. Data are available from the corresponding author (Y. Wang) with the permission of Academic Center for Epileptology Kempenhaeghe, Heeze, the Netherlands.
