The Clinical Contribution of Neurovascular Ultrasonography in Acute Ischemic Stroke.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patients with acute ischemic stroke receive computed tomography angiogram (CTA) and digital subtraction angiogram (DSA) for clinical evaluation. Current guidelines lack in defining indications for transcranial Doppler (TCD) and/or carotid duplex ultrasonography (CUS) in acute stroke evaluation or follow-up cerebrovascular imaging after reperfusion. We investigated the clinical utility of performing additional TCD/CUS after reperfusion in guiding postacute care stroke management. METHODS: Retrospective review of acute ischemic stroke patients admitted to a comprehensive stroke center with CTA head and neck and/or DSA followed by TCD/CUS. Cases were reviewed by two authors to determine if TCD/CUS provided additional diagnostic information to aid management. A nominal group process, using a third author, achieved consensus in cases of disagreements. RESULTS: Only 25 of 198 patients had CTA or DSA followed by TCD/CUS. Ten (40%) cases showed new clinical information from CUS aiding management. Of those with TCD, 5 patients (22.7%) had findings that impacted management. These clinical scenarios included detection of mobile thrombus requiring anticoagulation; distinguishing carotid near-occlusion from occlusion; confirming hemodynamic significance of intra/extracranial stenosis helping emergent stenting/endarterectomy; detecting hyperperfusion on TCDs causing symptoms; and establishing chronicity of carotid stenosis based on collateral flow patterns, which deferred further intervention. DISCUSSION: Our experience shows that TCD/CUS may offer additional diagnostic information assisting postacute care management in small subset of patients with acute ischemic stroke. Larger studies are needed to research the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of additional imaging and inform clinical guidelines for selecting patients who will benefit from these additional studies.

Evaluating the Clinical Impact of Rapid Response Electroencephalography: The DECIDE Multicenter Prospective Observational Clinical Study.

OBJECTIVES: To measure the diagnostic accuracy, timeliness, and ease of use of Ceribell rapid response electroencephalography. We assessed physicians' diagnostic assessments and treatment plans before and after rapid response electroencephalography assessment. Primary outcomes were changes in physicians' diagnostic and therapeutic decision making and their confidence in these decisions based on the use of the rapid response electroencephalography system. Secondary outcomes were time to electroencephalography, setup time, ease of use, and quality of electroencephalography data. DESIGN: Prospective multicenter nonrandomized observational study. SETTING: ICUs in five academic hospitals in the United States. SUBJECTS: Patients with encephalopathy suspected of having nonconvulsive seizures and physicians evaluating these patients. INTERVENTIONS: Physician bedside assessment of sonified electroencephalography (30 s from each hemisphere) and visual electroencephalography (60 s) using rapid response electroencephalography. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Physicians (29 fellows or residents, eight attending neurologists) evaluated 181 ICU patients; complete clinical and electroencephalography data were available in 164 patients (average 58.6 ± 18.7 yr old, 45% females). Relying on rapid response electroencephalography information at the bedside improved the sensitivity (95% CI) of physicians' seizure diagnosis from 77.8% (40.0%, 97.2%) to 100% (66.4%, 100%) and the specificity (95% CI) of their diagnosis from 63.9% (55.8%, 71.4%) to 89% (83.0%, 93.5%). Physicians' confidence in their own diagnosis and treatment plan were also improved. Time to electroencephalography (median [interquartile range]) was 5 minutes (4-10 min) with rapid response electroencephalography while the conventional electroencephalography was delayed by several hours (median [interquartile range] delay = 239 minutes [134-471 min] [p < 0.0001 using Wilcoxon signed rank test]). The device was rated as easy to use (mean ± SD: 4.7 ± 0.6 [1 = difficult, 5 = easy]) and was without serious adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid response electroencephalography enabled timely and more accurate assessment of patients in the critical care setting. The use of rapid response electroencephalography may be clinically beneficial in the assessment of patients with high suspicion for nonconvulsive seizures and status epilepticus.