Comparison of quantitative EEG to current clinical decision rules for head CT use in acute mild traumatic brain injury in the ED.

STUDY OBJECTIVE We compared the performance of a handheld quantitative electroencephalogram (QEEG) acquisition device to New Orleans Criteria (NOC), Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR), and National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study II (NEXUS II) Rule in predicting intracranial lesions on head computed tomography (CT) in acute mild traumatic brain injury in the emergency department (ED). METHODS Patients between 18 and 80 years of age who presented to the ED with acute blunt head trauma were enrolled in this prospective observational study at 2 urban academic EDs in Detroit, MI. Data were collected for 10 minutes from frontal leads to determine a QEEG discriminant score that could maximally classify intracranial lesions on head CT. RESULTS One hundred fifty-two patients were enrolled from July 2012 to February 2013. A total 17.1% had acute traumatic intracranial lesions on head CT. Quantitative electroencephalogram discriminant score of greater than or equal to 31 was found to be a good cutoff (area under receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.93) to classify patients with positive head CT. The sensitivity of QEEG discriminant score was 92.3 (95% CI, 73.4-98.6), whereas the specificity was 57.1 (95% CI, 48.0-65.8). The sensitivity and specificity of the decision rules were as follows: NOC 96.1 (95% CI, 78.4-99.7) and 15.8 (95% CI, 10.1-23.6); CCHR 46.1 (95% CI, 27.1-66.2) and 86.5 (95% CI, 78.9-91.7); NEXUS II 96.1 (95% CI, 78.4-99.7) and 31.7 (95% CI, 23.9-40.7). CONCLUSION At a sensitivity of greater than 90%, QEEG discriminant score had better specificity than NOC and NEXUS II. Only CCHR had better specificity than QEEG discriminant score but at the cost of low (<50%) sensitivity.

[1]  Mel Herbert,et al.  Developing a decision instrument to guide computed tomographic imaging of blunt head injury patients. , 2005, The Journal of trauma.

[2]  Michael McCrea,et al.  Acute Effects and Recovery After Sport‐Related Concussion: A Neurocognitive and Quantitative Brain Electrical Activity Study , 2010, The Journal of head trauma rehabilitation.

[3]  T. Mills,et al.  Indications for computed tomography in patients with minor head injury. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  Samanwoy Ghosh Dastidar,et al.  Classification of Traumatic Brain Injury Severity Using Informed Data Reduction in a Series of Binary Classifier Algorithms , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[5]  Henry A Glick,et al.  A critical comparison of clinical decision instruments for computed tomographic scanning in mild closed traumatic brain injury in adolescents and adults. , 2009, Annals of emergency medicine.

[6]  Robert L Wears,et al.  Clinical policy: neuroimaging and decisionmaking in adult mild traumatic brain injury in the acute setting. , 2002, Annals of emergency medicine.

[7]  W. Huda,et al.  Imaging strategies to reduce the risk of radiation in CT studies, including selective substitution with MRI , 2007, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[8]  Rosanne S Naunheim,et al.  Automated electroencephalogram identifies abnormalities in the ED. , 2011, The American journal of emergency medicine.

[9]  George A Wells,et al.  The Canadian CT Head Rule for patients with minor head injury , 2001, The Lancet.

[10]  D. Katz,et al.  Update of Neuropathology and Neurological Recovery After Traumatic Brain Injury , 2005, The Journal of head trauma rehabilitation.

[11]  Anthony Marmarou,et al.  A new classification of head injury based on computerized tomography , 1991 .

[12]  T Ingebrigtsen,et al.  Scandinavian guidelines for initial management of minimal, mild, and moderate head injuries. The Scandinavian Neurotrauma Committee. , 2000, The Journal of trauma.

[13]  Chang Bae Park,et al.  Comparison of clinical performance of cranial computed tomography rules in patients with minor head injury: a multicenter prospective study. , 2011, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[14]  J. Duff.  The Usefulness of Quantitative EEG (QEEG) and Neurotherapy in the Assessment and Treatment of Post-Concussion Syndrome , 2004, Clinical EEG and neuroscience.

[15]  C. Maimaris,et al.  Application of the Canadian CT head rules in managing minor head injuries in a UK emergency department: implications for the implementation of the NICE guidelines , 2004, Emergency Medicine Journal.

[16]  Leslie S. Prichep,et al.  Quantitative Brain Electrical Activity in the Initial Screening of Mild Traumatic Brain Injuries , 2011, The western journal of emergency medicine.

[17]  W Andrew Mould,et al.  Use of brain electrical activity for the identification of hematomas in mild traumatic brain injury. , 2013, Journal of neurotrauma.

[18]  T. Huseyin,et al.  NICE guideline for the management of head injury: an audit demonstrating its impact on a district general hospital, with a cost analysis for England and Wales , 2006, Emergency Medicine Journal.

[19]  R. Chabot,et al.  Time Course of Clinical and Electrophysiological Recovery After Sport-Related Concussion , 2013, The Journal of head trauma rehabilitation.

[20]  Ali Al-Ameri,et al.  National institute for Health and Clinical excellence guidance , 2007 .

[21]  R. Chabot,et al.  Use of brain electrical activity to quantify traumatic brain injury in the emergency department , 2010, Brain injury.

[22]  R. Conley,et al.  Assessment of capacity to give consent to research participation: state-of-the-art and beyond. , 1998, Journal of health care law & policy.

[23]  Brian H Rowe,et al.  Comparison of the Canadian CT Head Rule and the New Orleans Criteria in patients with minor head injury. , 2005, JAMA.

[24]  Michael McCrea,et al.  Measuring brain electrical activity to track recovery from sport-related concussion , 2012, Brain injury.

[25]  G. Teasdale,et al.  Defining acute mild head injury in adults: a proposal based on prognostic factors, diagnosis, and management. , 2001, Journal of neurotrauma.

[26]  C. Maimaris,et al.  Evaluation of the impact of the Canadian CT head rule on British practice. , 2004, Emergency medicine journal : EMJ.

[27]  S. Goodacre,et al.  Clinical decision rules for children with minor head injury: a systematic review , 2011, Archives of Disease in Childhood.

[28]  George A Wells,et al.  Performance of the Canadian CT Head Rule and the New Orleans Criteria for predicting any traumatic intracranial injury on computed tomography in a United States Level I trauma center. , 2012, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[29]  Marion Smits,et al.  External validation of the Canadian CT Head Rule and the New Orleans Criteria for CT scanning in patients with minor head injury. , 2005, JAMA.

[30]  M. Wald,et al.  Traumatic brain injury in the United States; emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and deaths, 2002-2006 , 2010 .

[31]  Abdullah Pandor,et al.  Clinical decision rules for adults with minor head injury: a systematic review. , 2011, The Journal of trauma.