Electric Fence Artifact on Ambulatory EEG and Review of Common EEG Electrical Artifacts

被引:0
作者
Figueredo Rivas L. [1 ]
Bruzzone Giraldez M. [1 ]
Simpkins A.N. [1 ]
机构
[1] Department of Neurology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL
关键词
Ambulatory EEG; artifact; electrical discharges; electricity; seizure;
D O I
10.1080/21646821.2021.1959217
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Ambulatory electroencephalogram (AEEG) can be a cost-effective and valuable alternative to in-patient long-term EEG monitoring. A potential benefit of AEEG is that it allows monitoring in the patient’s unique home environment. While this can be more affordable and convenient for the patient, it can also present unique challenges for the reviewer. Unlike long-term monitoring in an epilepsy unit, the AEEG recording occurs in a less controlled environment and most often without immediate EEG technical assistance during the recording. As a result, unique EEG artifacts can occur with AEEG. Their recognition and correct interpretation are crucial for proper EEG analysis. This report presents a case of a patient who underwent a 72-hour AEEG to evaluate symptoms initially concerning for subclinical seizures. During the AEEG recording, the patient had a tactile encounter with an electric fence. This tactile event resulted in a unique, not previously reported, pattern clouding an otherwise normal study. By conducting a brief review of the most common non-physiologic environmental artifacts encountered in modern EEG monitoring, we aim to emphasize the importance of patient education to prevent artifactual pollution. This knowledge can facilitate planning and help avoid environmental influences that may create artifacts when recording in an uncontrolled setting. © 2021 ASET–The Neurodiagnostic Society.
引用
收藏
页码:150 / 156
页数:6
相关论文
共 11 条
  • [1] Burke M., Odell M., Bouwer H., Murdoch A., Electric fences and accidental death, Forensic Sci Med Pathol, 13, 2, pp. 196-208, (2017)
  • [2] Faulkner H.J., Arima H., Mohamed A., The utility of prolonged outpatient ambulatory EEG, Seizure, 21, 7, pp. 491-495, (2012)
  • [3] Gonzalez Otarula K.A., Balaguera P., Schuele S., Ambulatory EEG to classify the Epilepsy syndrome, J Clin Neurophysiol, 38, 2, pp. 87-91, (2021)
  • [4] Herman S.T., Artifacts and how to avoid overcalling them, (2017)
  • [5] Hernandez-Ronquillo L., Thorpe L., Dash D., Hussein T., Hunter G., Waterhouse K., Roy P.L., Tellex-Zenteno J.F., Diagnostic accuracy of the ambulatory EEG vs. routine EEG for first single unprovoked seizures and seizure recurrence: the DX-seizure study, Front Neurol, 11, (2020)
  • [6] Islam M.K., Rastegarnia A., Yang Z., Methods for artifact detection and removal from scalp EEG: a review, Clin Neurophysiol, 46, 4-5, pp. 287-305, (2016)
  • [7] Kroll M.W., Panescu D., Perkins P.E., 37, (2015)
  • [8] Mathias S., Bensalem-Owen M., Artifacts that can be misinterpreted as interictal discharges, J Clin Neurophysiol, 36, 4, pp. 264-274, (2019)
  • [9] Sethi P.K., Sethi N.K., Torgovnick J., Mobile phone artifact, Clin Neurophysiol, 117, 8, pp. 1876-1878, (2006)
  • [10] Tatum W.O., Atlas of artifacts in clinical neurophysiology, (2019)