The use of continuous electroencephalography (cEEG) in the care of patients who are comatose after cardiac arrest has become common at tertiary care centers, but there are few data to clarify whether this costly and resource-intensive approach is superior to routine (ie, 20- to 40-minute duration) EEG assessments.1,2 There are 2 potential indications for EEG monitoring in this population of patients, as follows: to identify epileptic activity that is potentially amenable to treatment and to obtain prognostic information. Apart from clinical observation of convulsive movements, it is often impossible to predict whether potentially treatable findings will be observed, so EEG is often pursued based on both indications.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Maas MB. Evaluating the Prognostic Utility of Intermittent vs Continuous Electroencephalography in Comatose Survivors of Cardiac Arrest. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(4):e203743. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3743
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: