Cargando…
Electroencephalography in delirium assessment: a scoping review
BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common disorder affecting around 31% of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Delirium assessment scores such as the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) are time-consuming, they cannot differentiate between different types of delirium and their etiologies, and they may h...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8915483/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35277128 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12883-022-02557-w |
_version_ | 1784668033493499904 |
---|---|
author | Wiegand, Tim L. T. Rémi, Jan Dimitriadis, Konstantinos |
author_facet | Wiegand, Tim L. T. Rémi, Jan Dimitriadis, Konstantinos |
author_sort | Wiegand, Tim L. T. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common disorder affecting around 31% of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Delirium assessment scores such as the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) are time-consuming, they cannot differentiate between different types of delirium and their etiologies, and they may have low sensitivities in the clinical setting. While today, electroencephalography (EEG) is increasingly being applied to delirious patients in the ICU, a lack of clear cut EEG signs, leads to inconsistent assessments. METHODS: We therefore conducted a scoping review on EEG findings in delirium. One thousand two hundred thirty-six articles identified through database search on PubMed and Embase were reviewed. Finally, 33 original articles were included in the synthesis. RESULTS: EEG seems to offer manifold possibilities in diagnosing delirium. All 33 studies showed a certain degree of qualitative or quantitative EEG alterations in delirium. Thus, normal routine (rEEG) and continuous EEG (cEEG) make presence of delirium very unlikely. All 33 studies used different research protocols to at least some extent. These include differences in time points, duration, conditions, and recording methods of EEG, as well as different patient populations, and diagnostic methods for delirium. Thus, a quantitative synthesis and common recommendations are so far elusive. CONCLUSION: Future studies should compare the different methods of EEG recording and evaluation to identify robust parameters for everyday use. Evidence for quantitative bi-electrode delirium detection based on increased relative delta power and decreased beta power is growing and should be further pursued. Additionally, EEG studies on the evolution of a delirium including patient outcomes are needed. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12883-022-02557-w. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8915483 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89154832022-03-18 Electroencephalography in delirium assessment: a scoping review Wiegand, Tim L. T. Rémi, Jan Dimitriadis, Konstantinos BMC Neurol Research BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common disorder affecting around 31% of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Delirium assessment scores such as the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) are time-consuming, they cannot differentiate between different types of delirium and their etiologies, and they may have low sensitivities in the clinical setting. While today, electroencephalography (EEG) is increasingly being applied to delirious patients in the ICU, a lack of clear cut EEG signs, leads to inconsistent assessments. METHODS: We therefore conducted a scoping review on EEG findings in delirium. One thousand two hundred thirty-six articles identified through database search on PubMed and Embase were reviewed. Finally, 33 original articles were included in the synthesis. RESULTS: EEG seems to offer manifold possibilities in diagnosing delirium. All 33 studies showed a certain degree of qualitative or quantitative EEG alterations in delirium. Thus, normal routine (rEEG) and continuous EEG (cEEG) make presence of delirium very unlikely. All 33 studies used different research protocols to at least some extent. These include differences in time points, duration, conditions, and recording methods of EEG, as well as different patient populations, and diagnostic methods for delirium. Thus, a quantitative synthesis and common recommendations are so far elusive. CONCLUSION: Future studies should compare the different methods of EEG recording and evaluation to identify robust parameters for everyday use. Evidence for quantitative bi-electrode delirium detection based on increased relative delta power and decreased beta power is growing and should be further pursued. Additionally, EEG studies on the evolution of a delirium including patient outcomes are needed. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12883-022-02557-w. BioMed Central 2022-03-11 /pmc/articles/PMC8915483/ /pubmed/35277128 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12883-022-02557-w Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Wiegand, Tim L. T. Rémi, Jan Dimitriadis, Konstantinos Electroencephalography in delirium assessment: a scoping review |
title | Electroencephalography in delirium assessment: a scoping review |
title_full | Electroencephalography in delirium assessment: a scoping review |
title_fullStr | Electroencephalography in delirium assessment: a scoping review |
title_full_unstemmed | Electroencephalography in delirium assessment: a scoping review |
title_short | Electroencephalography in delirium assessment: a scoping review |
title_sort | electroencephalography in delirium assessment: a scoping review |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8915483/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35277128 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12883-022-02557-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wiegandtimlt electroencephalographyindeliriumassessmentascopingreview AT remijan electroencephalographyindeliriumassessmentascopingreview AT dimitriadiskonstantinos electroencephalographyindeliriumassessmentascopingreview |