1. |
- Fischer, U., et al.
(author)
-
Early versus Later Anticoagulation for Stroke with Atrial Fibrillation
- 2023
-
In: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793. ; 388:26, s. 2411-2421
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BackgroundThe effect of early as compared with later initiation of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in persons with atrial fibrillation who have had an acute ischemic stroke is unclear.MethodsWe performed an investigator-initiated, open-label trial at 103 sites in 15 countries. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to early anticoagulation (within 48 hours after a minor or moderate stroke or on day 6 or 7 after a major stroke) or later anticoagulation (day 3 or 4 after a minor stroke, day 6 or 7 after a moderate stroke, or day 12, 13, or 14 after a major stroke). Assessors were unaware of the trial-group assignments. The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, major extracranial bleeding, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or vascular death within 30 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes included the components of the composite primary outcome at 30 and 90 days.ResultsOf 2013 participants (37% with minor stroke, 40% with moderate stroke, and 23% with major stroke), 1006 were assigned to early anticoagulation and 1007 to later anticoagulation. A primary-outcome event occurred in 29 participants (2.9%) in the early-treatment group and 41 participants (4.1%) in the later-treatment group (risk difference, -1.18 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.84 to 0.47) by 30 days. Recurrent ischemic stroke occurred in 14 participants (1.4%) in the early-treatment group and 25 participants (2.5%) in the later-treatment group (odds ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.07) by 30 days and in 18 participants (1.9%) and 30 participants (3.1%), respectively, by 90 days (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.33 to 1.06). Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 2 participants (0.2%) in both groups by 30 days.ConclusionsIn this trial, the incidence of recurrent ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, major extracranial bleeding, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or vascular death at 30 days was estimated to range from 2.8 percentage points lower to 0.5 percentage points higher (based on the 95% confidence interval) with early than with later use of DOACs. (Funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation and others; ELAN ClinicalTrials.gov number, .)
|
|
2. |
- Abend, Sven, et al.
(author)
-
Terrestrial very-long-baseline atom interferometry : Workshop summary
- 2024
-
In: AVS Quantum Science. - : American Institute of Physics (AIP). - 2639-0213. ; 6:2
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This document presents a summary of the 2023 Terrestrial Very-Long-Baseline Atom Interferometry Workshop hosted by CERN. The workshop brought together experts from around the world to discuss the exciting developments in large-scale atom interferometer (AI) prototypes and their potential for detecting ultralight dark matter and gravitational waves. The primary objective of the workshop was to lay the groundwork for an international TVLBAI proto-collaboration. This collaboration aims to unite researchers from different institutions to strategize and secure funding for terrestrial large-scale AI projects. The ultimate goal is to create a roadmap detailing the design and technology choices for one or more kilometer--scale detectors, which will be operational in the mid-2030s. The key sections of this report present the physics case and technical challenges, together with a comprehensive overview of the discussions at the workshop together with the main conclusions.
|
|
3. |
- Barquinero, J-F., et al.
(author)
-
RENEB Inter-Laboratory Comparison 2021 : The FISH-Based Translocation Assay
- 2023
-
In: Radiation Research. - 0033-7587 .- 1938-5404. ; 199:6, s. 583-590
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Translocation analysis using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is the method of choice for dose assessment in case of chronic or past exposures to ionizing radiation. Although it is a widespread technique, unlike dicentrics, the number of FISH-based inter-laboratory comparisons is small. For this reason, although the current Running the European Network of Biological and Physical retrospective Dosimetry (RENEB) inter-laboratory comparison 2021 was designed as a fast response to a real emergency scenario, it was considered a good opportunity to perform an inter-laboratory comparison using the FISH technique to gain further experience. The Bundeswehr Institute of Radiobiology provided peripheral blood samples from one healthy human volunteer. Three test samples were irradiated with blinded doses of 0, 1.2, and 3.5 Gy, respectively. Samples were then sent to the seven participating laboratories. The FISH technique was applied according to the standard procedure of each laboratory. Both, the frequency of translocations and the estimated dose for each sample were sent to the coordinator using a special scoring sheet for FISH. All participants sent their results in due time. However, although it was initially requested to send the results based on the full analysis, evaluating 500 equivalent cells, most laboratories only sent the results based on triage, with a smaller number of analyzed cells. In the triage analysis, there was great heterogeneity in the number of equivalent cells scored. On the contrary, for the full analysis, this number was more homogeneous. For all three samples, one laboratory showed outlier yields compared to the other laboratories. Excluding these results, in the triage analysis, the frequency of translocations in sample no. 1 ranged from 0 to 0.013 translocations per cell, and for samples no. 2 and no. 3 the genomic mean frequency were 0.27 +/- 0.03 and 1.47 +/- 0.14, with a coefficient of variation of 0.29 and 0.23 respectively. Considering only results obtained in the triage analysis for sample no. 1, all laboratories, except one, classified this sample as the non-irradiated one. For sample no. 2, excluding the outlier value, the mean reported dose was 1.74 +/- 0.16 Gy indicating a mean deviation of about 0.5 Gy to the delivered dose of 1.2 Gy. For sample no. 3 the mean dose estimated was 4.21 +/- 0.21 Gy indicating a mean deviation of about 0.7 Gy to the delivered dose of 3.5 Gy. In the frame of RENEB, this is the second FISH-based inter-laboratory comparison. The whole exercise was planned as a response to an emergency, therefore, a triage analysis was requested for all the biomarkers except for FISH. Although a full analysis was initially requested for FISH, most of the laboratories reported only a triage-based result. The main reason is that it was not clearly stated what was required before starting the exercise. Results show that most of the laboratories successfully discriminated unexposed and irradiated samples from each other without any overlap. A good agreement in the observed frequencies of translocations was observed but there was a tendency to overestimate the delivered doses. Efforts to improve the harmonization of this technique and subsequent exercises to elucidate the reason for this trend should be promoted.
|
|
4. |
- Abend, M., et al.
(author)
-
Inter-laboratory comparison of gene expression biodosimetry for protracted radiation exposures as part of the RENEB and EURADOS WG10 2019 exercise
- 2021
-
In: Scientific Reports. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2045-2322. ; 11:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Large-scale radiation emergency scenarios involving protracted low dose rate radiation exposure (e.g. a hidden radioactive source in a train) necessitate the development of high throughput methods for providing rapid individual dose estimates. During the RENEB (Running the European Network of Biodosimetry) 2019 exercise, four EDTA-blood samples were exposed to an Iridium-192 source (1.36 TBq, Tech-Ops 880 Sentinal) at varying distances and geometries. This resulted in protracted doses ranging between 0.2 and 2.4 Gy using dose rates of 1.5-40 mGy/min and exposure times of 1 or 2.5 h. Blood samples were exposed in thermo bottles that maintained temperatures between 39 and 27.7 degrees C. After exposure, EDTA-blood samples were transferred into PAXGene tubes to preserve RNA. RNA was isolated in one laboratory and aliquots of four blinded RNA were sent to another five teams for dose estimation based on gene expression changes. Using an X-ray machine, samples for two calibration curves (first: constant dose rate of 8.3 mGy/min and 0.5-8 h varying exposure times; second: varying dose rates of 0.5-8.3 mGy/min and 4 h exposure time) were generated for distribution. Assays were run in each laboratory according to locally established protocols using either a microarray platform (one team) or quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR, five teams). The qRT-PCR measurements were highly reproducible with coefficient of variation below 15% in >= 75% of measurements resulting in reported dose estimates ranging between 0 and 0.5 Gy in all samples and in all laboratories. Up to twofold reductions in RNA copy numbers per degree Celsius relative to 37 degrees C were observed. However, when irradiating independent samples equivalent to the blinded samples but increasing the combined exposure and incubation time to 4 h at 37 degrees C, expected gene expression changes corresponding to the absorbed doses were observed. Clearly, time and an optimal temperature of 37 degrees C must be allowed for the biological response to manifest as gene expression changes prior to running the gene expression assay. In conclusion, dose reconstructions based on gene expression measurements are highly reproducible across different techniques, protocols and laboratories. Even a radiation dose of 0.25 Gy protracted over 4 h (1 mGy/min) can be identified. These results demonstrate the importance of the incubation conditions and time span between radiation exposure and measurements of gene expression changes when using this method in a field exercise or real emergency situation.
|
|
5. |
- Abend, M., et al.
(author)
-
RENEB Inter-Laboratory Comparison 2021 : The Gene Expression Assay
- 2023
-
In: Radiation Research. - 0033-7587 .- 1938-5404. ; 199:6, s. 598-615
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Early and high-throughput individual dose estimates are essential following large-scale radiation exposure events. In the context of the Running the European Network for Biodosimetry and Physical Dosimetry (RENEB) 2021 exercise, gene expression assays were conducted and their corresponding performance for dose-assessment is presented in this publication. Three blinded, coded whole blood samples from healthy donors were exposed to 0, 1.2 and 3.5 Gy X-ray doses (240 kVp, 1 Gy/min) using the X-ray source Yxlon. These exposures correspond to clinically relevant groups of unexposed, low dose (no severe acute health effects expected) and high dose exposed individuals (requiring early intensive medical health care). Samples were sent to eight teams for dose estimation and identification of clinically relevant groups. For quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) and microarray analyses, samples were lysed, stored at 20°C and shipped on wet ice. RNA isolations and assays were run in each laboratory according to locally established protocols. The time-to-result for both rough early and more precise later reports has been documented where possible. Accuracy of dose estimates was calculated as the difference between estimated and reference doses for all doses (summed absolute difference, SAD) and by determining the number of correctly reported dose estimates that were defined as ±0.5 Gy for reference doses <2.5 Gy and ±1.0 Gy for reference doses >3 Gy, as recommended for triage dosimetry. We also examined the allocation of dose estimates to clinically/diagnostically relevant exposure groups. Altogether, 105 dose estimates were reported by the eight teams, and the earliest report times on dose categories and estimates were 5 h and 9 h, respectively. The coefficient of variation for 85% of all 436 qRT-PCR measurements did not exceed 10%. One team reported dose estimates that systematically deviated several-fold from reported dose estimates, and these outliers were excluded from further analysis. Teams employing a combination of several genes generated about two-times lower median SADs (0.8 Gy) compared to dose estimates based on single genes only (1.7 Gy). When considering the uncertainty intervals for triage dosimetry, dose estimates of all teams together were correctly reported in 100% of the 0 Gy, 50% of the 1.2 Gy and 50% of the 3.5 Gy exposed samples. The order of dose estimates (from lowest to highest) corresponding to three dose categories (unexposed, low dose and highest exposure) were correctly reported by all teams and all chosen genes or gene combinations. Furthermore, if teams reported no exposure or an exposure >3.5 Gy, it was always correctly allocated to the unexposed and the highly exposed group, while low exposed (1.2 Gy) samples sometimes could not be discriminated from highly (3.5 Gy) exposed samples. All teams used FDXR and 78.1% of correct dose estimates used FDXR as one of the predictors. Still, the accuracy of reported dose estimates based on FDXR differed considerably among teams with one team's SAD (0.5 Gy) being comparable to the dose accuracy employing a combination of genes. Using the workflow of this reference team, we performed additional experiments after the exercise on residual RNA and cDNA sent by six teams to the reference team. All samples were processed similarly with the intention to improve the accuracy of dose estimates when employing the same workflow. Re-evaluated dose estimates improved for half of the samples and worsened for the others. In conclusion, this inter-laboratory comparison exercise enabled (1) identification of technical problems and corrections in preparations for future events, (2) confirmed the early and high-throughput capabilities of gene expression, (3) emphasized different biodosimetry approaches using either only FDXR or a gene combination, (4) indicated some improvements in dose estimation with FDXR when employing a similar methodology, which requires further research for the final conclusion and (5) underlined the applicability of gene expression for identification of unexposed and highly exposed samples, supporting medical management in radiological or nuclear scenarios.
|
|
6. |
- Port, M., et al.
(author)
-
RENEB Inter-Laboratory Comparison 2021 : Inter-Assay Comparison of Eight Dosimetry Assays
- 2023
-
In: Radiation Research. - 0033-7587 .- 1938-5404. ; 199:6, s. 535-555
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Tools for radiation exposure reconstruction are required to support the medical management of radiation victims in radiological or nuclear incidents. Different biological and physical dosimetry assays can be used for various exposure scenarios to estimate the dose of ionizing radiation a person has absorbed. Regular validation of the techniques through inter-laboratory comparisons (ILC) is essential to guarantee high quality results. In the current RENEB inter-laboratory comparison, the performance quality of established cytogenetic assays [dicentric chromosome assay (DCA), cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay (CBMN), stable chromosomal translocation assay (FISH) and premature chromosome condensation assay (PCC)] was tested in comparison to molecular biological assays [gamma-H2AX foci (gH2AX), gene expression (GE)] and physical dosimetry-based assays [electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR), optically or thermally stimulated luminescence (LUM)]. Three blinded coded samples (e.g., blood, enamel or mobiles) were exposed to 0, 1.2 or 3.5 Gy X-ray reference doses (240 kVp, 1 Gy/min). These doses roughly correspond to clinically relevant groups of unexposed to low exposed (0-1 Gy), moderately exposed (1-2 Gy, no severe acute health effects expected) and highly exposed individuals (>2 Gy, requiring early intensive medical care). In the frame of the current RENEB inter-laboratory comparison, samples were sent to 86 specialized teams in 46 organizations from 27 nations for dose estimation and identification of three clinically relevant groups. The time for sending early crude reports and more precise reports was documented for each laboratory and assay where possible. The quality of dose estimates was analyzed with three different levels of granularity, 1. by calculating the frequency of correctly reported clinically relevant dose categories, 2. by determining the number of dose estimates within the uncertainty intervals recommended for triage dosimetry (+/- 0.5 Gy or +/- 1.0 Gy for doses < 2.5 Gy or > 2.5 Gy), and 3. by calculating the absolute difference (AD) of estimated doses relative to the reference doses. In total, 554 dose estimates were submitted within the 6-week period given before the exercise was closed. For samples processed with the highest priority, earliest dose estimates/categories were reported within 5-10 h of receipt for GE, gH2AX, LUM, EPR, 2-3 days for DCA, CBMN and within 6-7 days for the FISH assay. For the unirradiated control sample, the categorization in the correct clinically relevant group (0-1 Gy) as well as the allocation to the triage uncertainty interval was, with the exception of a few outliers, successfully performed for all assays. For the 3.5 Gy sample the percentage of correct classifications to the clinically relevant group (>= 2 Gy) was between 89-100% for all assays, with the exception of gH2AX. For the 1.2 Gy sample, an exact allocation to the clinically relevant group was more difficult and 0-50% or 0-48% of the estimates were wrongly classified into the lowest or highest dose categories, respectively. For the irradiated samples, the correct allocation to the triage uncertainty intervals varied considerably between assays for the 1.2 Gy (29-76%) and 3.5 Gy (17-100%) samples. While a systematic shift towards higher doses was observed for the cytogenetic-based assays, extreme outliers exceeding the reference doses 2-6 fold were observed for EPR, FISH and GE assays. These outliers were related to a particular material examined (tooth enamel for EPR assay, reported as kerma in enamel, but when converted into the proper quantity, i.e. to kerma in air, expected dose estimates could be recalculated in most cases), the level of experience of the teams (FISH) and methodological uncertainties (GE). This was the first RENEB ILC where everything, from blood sampling to irradiation and shipment of the samples, was organized and realized at the same institution, for several biological and physical retrospective dosimetry assays. Almost all assays appeared comparably applicable for the identification of unexposed and highly exposed individuals and the allocation of medical relevant groups, with the latter requiring medical support for the acute radiation scenario simulated in this exercise. However, extreme outliers or a systematic shift of dose estimates have been observed for some assays. Possible reasons will be discussed in the assay specific papers of this special issue. In summary, this ILC clearly demonstrates the need to conduct regular exercises to identify research needs, but also to identify technical problems and to optimize the design of future ILCs.
|
|
7. |
- Vanhatalo, Sampsa, et al.
(author)
-
Why monitor the neonatal brain-that is the important question
- 2023
-
In: Pediatric Research. - : Springer Nature. - 0031-3998 .- 1530-0447. ; 93:1, s. 19-21
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)abstract
- A key goal of neonatal neurocritical care is improved outcomes, and brain monitoring plays an essential role. The recent NEST trial(1) reported no outcome benefits using aEEG monitoring compared to clinical seizure identification among neonates treated for seizures. However, the study failed to prove the effects of monitoring on seizure treatment in the first place.
|
|
8. |
- Waldner, L., et al.
(author)
-
The 2019-2020 EURADOS WG10 and RENEB Field Test of Retrospective Dosimetry Methods in a Small-Scale Incident Involving Ionizing Radiation
- 2021
-
In: Radiation Research. - 0033-7587 .- 1938-5404. ; 195:3, s. 253-264
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- With the use of ionizing radiation comes the risk of accidents and malevolent misuse. When unplanned exposures occur, there are several methods which can be used to retrospectively reconstruct individual radiation exposures; biological methods include analysis of aberrations and damage of chromosomes and DNA, while physical methods rely on luminescence (TL/OSL) or EPR signals. To ensure the quality and dependability of these methods, they should be evaluated under realistic exposure conditions. In 2019, EURADOS Working Group 10 and RENEB organized a field test with the purpose of evaluating retrospective dosimetry methods as carried out in potential real-life exposure scenarios. A 1.36 TBq 192Ir source was used to irradiate anthropomorphic phantoms in different geometries at doses of several Gy in an outdoor open-air geometry. Materials intended for accident dosimetry (including mobile phones and blood) were placed on the phantoms together with reference dosimeters (LiF, NaCl, glass). The objective was to estimate radiation exposures received by individuals as measured using blood and fortuitous materials, and to evaluate these methods by comparing the estimated doses to reference measurements and Monte Carlo simulations. Herein we describe the overall planning, goals, execution and preliminary outcomes of the 2019 field test. Such field tests are essential for the development of new and existing methods. The outputs from this field test include useful experience in terms of planning and execution of future exercises, with respect to time management, radiation protection, and reference dosimetry to be considered to obtain relevant data for analysis.
|
|
9. |
|
|
10. |
- El-Dib, Mohamed, et al.
(author)
-
Neuromonitoring in neonatal critical care part II : extremely premature infants and critically ill neonates
- 2023
-
In: Pediatric Research. - : Springer Nature. - 0031-3998 .- 1530-0447. ; 94:1, s. 55-63
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Neonatal intensive care has expanded from cardiorespiratory care to a holistic approach emphasizing brain health. To best understand and monitor brain function and physiology in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), the most commonly used tools are amplitude-integrated EEG, full multichannel continuous EEG, and near-infrared spectroscopy. Each of these modalities has unique characteristics and functions. While some of these tools have been the subject of expert consensus statements or guidelines, there is no overarching agreement on the optimal approach to neuromonitoring in the NICU. This work reviews current evidence to assist decision making for the best utilization of these neuromonitoring tools to promote neuroprotective care in extremely premature infants and in critically ill neonates. Neuromonitoring approaches in neonatal encephalopathy and neonates with possible seizures are discussed separately in the companion paper. Impact For extremely premature infants, NIRS monitoring has a potential role in individualized brain-oriented care, and selective use of aEEG and cEEG can assist in seizure detection and prognostication. For critically ill neonates, NIRS can monitor cerebral perfusion, oxygen delivery, and extraction associated with disease processes as well as respiratory and hypodynamic management. Selective use of aEEG and cEEG is important in those with a high risk of seizures and brain injury. Continuous multimodal monitoring as well as monitoring of sleep, sleep-wake cycling, and autonomic nervous system have a promising role in neonatal neurocritical care.
|
|
11. |
- Endesfelder, D., et al.
(author)
-
What We Have Learned from RENEB Inter-Laboratory Comparisons Since 2012 With Focus on ILC 2021
- 2023
-
In: Radiation Research. - 0033-7587 .- 1938-5404. ; 199:6, s. 616-627
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Inter-laboratory exercises are important tools within the European network for biological dosimetry and physical retrospective dosimetry (RENEB) to validate and improve the performance of member laboratories and to ensure an operational network with high quality standards for dose estimations in case of a large-scale radiological or nuclear event. In addition to the RENEB inter-laboratory comparison 2021, several inter-laboratory comparisons have been performed in the frame of RENEB for a number of assays in recent years. This publication gives an overview of RENEB inter-laboratory comparisons for biological dosimetry assays in the past and a final summary of the challenges and lessons learnt from the RENEB inter-laboratory comparison 2021. In addition, the dose estimates of all RENEB inter-laboratory comparisons since 2013 that have been conducted for the dicentric chromosome assay, the most established and applied assay, are compared and discussed.
|
|
12. |
- Tan, Eng Hooi, et al.
(author)
-
COVID-19 in patients with autoimmune diseases: characteristics and outcomes in a multinational network of cohorts across three countries.
- 2021
-
In: Rheumatology (Oxford, England). - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1462-0332 .- 1462-0324. ; 60:SI
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Patients with autoimmune diseases were advised to shield to avoid coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but information on their prognosis is lacking. We characterized 30-day outcomes and mortality after hospitalization with COVID-19 among patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, and compared outcomes after hospital admissions among similar patients with seasonal influenza.A multinational network cohort study was conducted using electronic health records data from Columbia University Irving Medical Center [USA, Optum (USA), Department of Veterans Affairs (USA), Information System for Research in Primary Care-Hospitalization Linked Data (Spain) and claims data from IQVIA Open Claims (USA) and Health Insurance and Review Assessment (South Korea). All patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, diagnosed and/or hospitalized between January and June 2020 with COVID-19, and similar patients hospitalized with influenza in 2017-18 were included. Outcomes were death and complications within 30days of hospitalization.We studied 133589 patients diagnosed and 48418 hospitalized with COVID-19 with prevalent autoimmune diseases. Most patients were female, aged ≥50years with previous comorbidities. The prevalence of hypertension (45.5-93.2%), chronic kidney disease (14.0-52.7%) and heart disease (29.0-83.8%) was higher in hospitalized vs diagnosed patients with COVID-19. Compared with 70660 hospitalized with influenza, those admitted with COVID-19 had more respiratory complications including pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome, and higher 30-day mortality (2.2-4.3% vs 6.32-24.6%).Compared with influenza, COVID-19 is a more severe disease, leading to more complications and higher mortality.
|
|
13. |
- El-Dib, Mohamed, et al.
(author)
-
Neuromonitoring in neonatal critical care part I : neonatal encephalopathy and neonates with possible seizures
- 2023
-
In: Pediatric Research. - : Springer Nature. - 0031-3998 .- 1530-0447. ; 94:1, s. 64-73
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The blooming of neonatal neurocritical care over the last decade reflects substantial advances in neuromonitoring and neuroprotection. The most commonly used brain monitoring tools in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) are amplitude integrated EEG (aEEG), full multichannel continuous EEG (cEEG), and near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS). While some published guidelines address individual tools, there is no consensus on consistent, efficient, and beneficial use of these modalities in common NICU scenarios. This work reviews current evidence to assist decision making for best utilization of neuromonitoring modalities in neonates with encephalopathy or with possible seizures. Neuromonitoring approaches in extremely premature and critically ill neonates are discussed separately in the companion paper. Impact:center dot Neuromonitoring techniques hold promise for improving neonatal care. center dot For neonatal encephalopathy, aEEG can assist in screening for eligibility for therapeutic hypothermia, though should not be used to exclude otherwise eligible neonates. Continuous cEEG, aEEG and NIRS through rewarming can assist in prognostication. center dot For neonates with possible seizures, cEEG is the gold standard for detection and diagnosis. If not available, aEEG as a screening tool is superior to clinical assessment alone. The use of seizure detection algorithms can help with timely seizures detection at the bedside.
|
|