Loading…

Reducing EEG (Electroencephalogram) Electrode-induced Skin Injury among Ambulatory EEG Monitored Patients: A Non-randomized Interventional Study of Two Commonly Used Cream-based Products for Electrode Application

Ambulatory electroencephalography (AEEG) seeks to capture inter-ictal epileptiform activity or paroxysmal events when patients are not in the clinic. Skin inflammation is a common complication of prolonged EEG monitoring. This non-randomized study aimed to investigate the performance of two commonly...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Neurodiagnostic journal 2020-12, Vol.60 (4), p.300-316
Main Authors: Ouchida, Sumika, Nikpour, Armin, Fairbrother, Greg
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Ambulatory electroencephalography (AEEG) seeks to capture inter-ictal epileptiform activity or paroxysmal events when patients are not in the clinic. Skin inflammation is a common complication of prolonged EEG monitoring. This non-randomized study aimed to investigate the performance of two commonly used cream-based methods of electrode application in reducing electrode-induced skin injury among patients undergoing AEEG monitoring. A non-randomized interventional study was conducted from July to December 2019 in the Neurosciences Ambulatory Care Unit at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Australia. Patients were enrolled into two groups: i) Group T, which received Ten20® Conductive Paste with Tensive® Conductive Adhesive Gel as the primary approach to electrode application; ii). Group E, which received EC2⁺® Conductive Cream as the primary approach to electrode application. Patients in Group T were enrolled in the 1st and 3rd week of the month, and patients in Group E were enrolled in the 2nd and 4th week for each month of the study. A total of 152 patients participated in this study. Two sub-groups were established: those who were monitored for two days (Group T; n = 36, Group E; n = 30) and those who were monitored for four days (Group T; n = 43, Group E; n = 43). Significant (p
ISSN:2164-6821
2375-8627
DOI:10.1080/21646821.2020.1829894