Advertisement

Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 45, Issue 5, pp 714–718 | Cite as

Utility of CT-compatible EEG electrodes in critically ill children

  • Nicholas S. AbendEmail author
  • Dennis J. Dlugos
  • Xiaowei Zhu
  • Erin S. Schwartz
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Electroencephalographic monitoring is being used with increasing frequency in critically ill children who may require frequent and sometimes urgent brain CT scans. Standard metallic disk EEG electrodes commonly produce substantial imaging artifact, and they must be removed and later reapplied when CT scans are indicated.

Objective

To determine whether conductive plastic electrodes caused artifact that limited CT interpretation.

Material and methods

We describe a retrospective cohort of 13 consecutive critically ill children who underwent 17 CT scans with conductive plastic electrodes during 1 year. CT images were evaluated by a pediatric neuroradiologist for artifact presence, type and severity.

Results

All CT scans had excellent quality images without artifact that impaired CT interpretation except for one scan in which improper wire placement resulted in artifact.

Conclusion

Conductive plastic electrodes do not cause artifact limiting CT scan interpretation and may be used in critically ill children to permit concurrent electroencephalographic monitoring and CT imaging.

Keywords

Computed tomography Electroencephalogram Electrodes Children 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Dr. Abend is supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (K23NS076550).

Conflicts of interest

None

References

  1. 1.
    Sanchez SM, Carpenter J, Chapman KE et al (2013) Pediatric ICU EEG monitoring: current resources and practice in the United States and Canada. J Clin Neurophysiol 30:156–160CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abend NS, Topjian AA, Gutierrez-Colina AM et al (2011) Impact of continuous EEG monitoring on clinical management in critically ill children. Neurocrit Care 15:70–75CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abend NS, Arndt DH, Carpenter JL et al (2013) Electrographic seizures in pediatric ICU patients: cohort study of risk factors and mortality. Neurology 81:383–391CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wagenman KL, Blake TP, Sanchez SM et al (2014) Electrographic status epilepticus and long-term outcome in critically ill children. Neurology 4:396–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Das RR, Lucey BP, Chou SH et al (2009) The utility of conductive plastic electrodes in prolonged ICU EEG monitoring. Neurocrit Care 10:368–372CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vulliemoz S, Perrig S, Pellise D et al (2009) Imaging compatible electrodes for continuous electroencephalogram monitoring in the intensive care unit. J Clin Neurophysiol 26:236–243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abend NS, Gutierrez-Colina AM, Topjian AA et al (2011) Nonconvulsive seizures are common in critically ill children. Neurology 76:1071–1077CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mirsattari SM, Davies-Schinkel C, Young GB et al (2009) Usefulness of a 1.5 T MRI-compatible EEG electrode system for routine use in the intensive care unit of a tertiary care hospital. Epilepsy Res 84:28–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicholas S. Abend
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Dennis J. Dlugos
    • 1
  • Xiaowei Zhu
    • 3
  • Erin S. Schwartz
    • 3
  1. 1.Departments of Neurology and Pediatrics, The Children’s Hospital of PhiladelphiaPerelman School of Medicine at the University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.CHOP NeurologyPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Radiology, The Children’s Hospital of PhiladelphiaPerelman School of Medicine at the University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations