The Usefulness of EEG Diagnostics and its Indication in Outpatients
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2020
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Rīgas Stradiņa universitāte
Rīga Stradiņš University
Rīga Stradiņš University
Abstract
Mērķis: Izpētīt saistību starp nosūtījuma diagnozi un būtiskiem patoloģiskiem atklājumiem
EEG izmeklējumā ambulatoriem pacientiem, lai uzlabotu priekšrocības, ko dod EEG kā
izmeklēšanas metode ambulatorās klīnikās.
Metodes: Retrospektīvs pārskats par 141 ambulatoru pacientu secīgi veiktu 20 minūšu EEG
ierakstu, kuri tika veikti Paula Stradiņa klīnikā Rīgā (Latvija). Nosūtījuma diagnozes tika
klasificētas atbilstoši to ICD-10 2016 ekvivalentam. Mērķa grupa bija pieaugušie iedzīvotāji.
Rezultāti: No 141 EEG izmeklējumiem 53 (37,6 %) uzrādīja nozīmīgu patoloģisku atradni.
Vecuma diapazons bija no 18 līdz 84 gadiem; vidēji 46 gadi. Lielākajai daļai (70,9 %) pacientu
bija nosūtījums ar aizdomām par epilepsiju vai epilepsijas izraisītiem traucējumiem G40 - G47,
kam sekoja R00 - R99 spektra traucējumi (17 %) un citi specifiski 2016. gada ICD-10 kodēti
traucējumi (12,1 %). Piecdesmit septiņi (41 %) pacienti bija ar neirologa nosūtījumu, 81 (59 %)
– ar ģimenes ārsta vai citas specialitātes ārsta.Statistiskā analīze ar chi-square testu atklāja, ka
nosūtījuma diagnozeun EEG iznākums ir atkarīgi viens no otra (chi-square = 6,659, p = 0,010).
Nebija saistības starp nosūtošo ārstu un EEG iznākumu (chi-square = 0,035, p = 0,852).
Secinājums: Ieguvums no ambulatorās EEG, kas veikta pacientiem ar aizdomām par epilepsiju
vai epilepsiju saistītiem traucējumiem, ir lielāks nekā citu traucējumu gadījumā.
Iespējamsdaudzi nosūtījumi nebija saskaņā ar jaunākajiem vadlīnijām.
Objective: To explore the association between referral diagnosis and significant pathological findings in outpatients who underwent an EEG investigation, to improve the benefits of EEG use as an investigation method in outpatient clinics. Keywords: Neurology, Neurologic investigation methods, EEG Methods: Retrospective review of 141 consecutive performed 20-min-EEG records referred from outpatient departments recorded in Paul Stradiņš Clinic in Riga (Latvia). Referrals were classified according to their ICD-10 2016 equivalent. Target group was adult population. Results: Out of 141 records 53 (37,6 %) showed a significant pathological finding. The age ranged from 18 to 84 years with of mean of 46 years. Majority (70,9 %) of the patients got referred due to suspected epilepsy or epilepsy related disorders G40 - G47, followed by disorders of R00 - R99 spectrum (17 %) and other specific ICD-10 2016 coded disorders (12,1 %). Fifty-seven (41,3 %) patients got referred from neurologists, eighty-one (58,7 %) from family doctors or other physicians. Statistical analysis with chi-squared test revealed that the referral diagnosis and the EEG outcome are dependent on each other (chi-square = 6,659, p = 0,010). There was no association between referring physician and outcome of EEG (chi-square = 0,035, p = 0,852). Conclusion: The yield of outpatient EEG referred due to epilepsy and epilepsy related disorders is higher than for nonepileptic disorders. Possibly many referrals were inconsistent with current recommendations.
Objective: To explore the association between referral diagnosis and significant pathological findings in outpatients who underwent an EEG investigation, to improve the benefits of EEG use as an investigation method in outpatient clinics. Keywords: Neurology, Neurologic investigation methods, EEG Methods: Retrospective review of 141 consecutive performed 20-min-EEG records referred from outpatient departments recorded in Paul Stradiņš Clinic in Riga (Latvia). Referrals were classified according to their ICD-10 2016 equivalent. Target group was adult population. Results: Out of 141 records 53 (37,6 %) showed a significant pathological finding. The age ranged from 18 to 84 years with of mean of 46 years. Majority (70,9 %) of the patients got referred due to suspected epilepsy or epilepsy related disorders G40 - G47, followed by disorders of R00 - R99 spectrum (17 %) and other specific ICD-10 2016 coded disorders (12,1 %). Fifty-seven (41,3 %) patients got referred from neurologists, eighty-one (58,7 %) from family doctors or other physicians. Statistical analysis with chi-squared test revealed that the referral diagnosis and the EEG outcome are dependent on each other (chi-square = 6,659, p = 0,010). There was no association between referring physician and outcome of EEG (chi-square = 0,035, p = 0,852). Conclusion: The yield of outpatient EEG referred due to epilepsy and epilepsy related disorders is higher than for nonepileptic disorders. Possibly many referrals were inconsistent with current recommendations.
Description
Medicīna
Medicine
Veselības aprūpe
Health Care
Medicine
Veselības aprūpe
Health Care
Keywords
Neiroloģija, Neiroloģiskās izmeklēšanas metodes, EEG, Neurology, Neurologic investigation methods, EEG