Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32253731›Full record

ArticleNeurocritical care2020

The PET Sandwich: Using Serial FDG-PET Scans with Interval Burst Suppression to Assess Ictal Components of Disease.

Feras Akbik, Matthew Robertson, Alvin S Das, Tarun Singhal, Jong Woo Lee, Henrikas Vaitkevicius

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurocritical care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Triphasic waves: To treat or not to treat?Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Feras AkbikDepartment of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Division of Neurocritical Care, Emory School of Medicine, Emory University Hospital, 1364 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
Matthew RobertsonDepartment of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Alvin S DasDepartment of Neurology, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Tarun SinghalDepartment of Neurology, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Jong Woo LeeDepartment of Neurology, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Henrikas VaitkeviciusDepartment of Neurology, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. hvait@bwh.harvard.edu.
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USHarvard University · USEmory University Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDetermining the cause of refractory seizures and/or interictal continuum (IIC) findings in the critically ill patient remains a challenge. These electrographic abnormalities may represent primary ictal pathology or may instead be driven by an underlying infectious, inflammatory, or neoplastic pathology that requires targeted therapy. In these cases, it is unclear whether escalating antiepileptic therapy will be helpful or harmful. Herein, we report the use of serial [F-18] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) coupled with induced electrographic burst suppression to distinguish between primary and secondary ictal pathologies. We propose that anesthetic suppression of hypermetabolic foci suggests clinical responsiveness to escalating antiepileptic therapy, whereas non-suppressible hypermetabolic foci are suggestive of non-ictal pathologies that likely require multimodal therapy.

methodsWe describe 6 patients who presented with electrographic findings of seizure or IIC abnormalities, severe neurologic injury, and clinical concern for confounding pathologies. All patients were continuously monitored on video electroencephalography (cvEEG). Five patients underwent at least two sequential FDG-PET scans of the brain: one in a baseline state and the second while under electrographic burst suppression. FDG-avid loci and EEG tracings were compared pre- and post-burst suppression. One patient underwent a single FDG-PET scan while burst-suppressed.

resultsFour patients had initially FDG-avid foci that subsequently resolved with burst suppression. Escalation of antiepileptic therapy in these patients resulted in clinical improvement, suggesting that the foci were related to primary ictal pathology. These included clinical diagnoses of electroclinical status epilepticus, new-onset refractory status epilepticus, stroke-like migraine attacks after radiotherapy, and epilepsy secondary to inflammatory cerebral amyloid angiopathy. Conversely, two patients with high-grade EEG abnormalities had FDG-avid foci that persisted despite burst suppression. The first presented with a poor examination, fever, and concern for encephalitis. Postmortem pathology confirmed suspicion of herpes simplex virus encephalitis. The second patient presented with concern for checkpoint inhibitor-induced autoimmune encephalitis. The persistence of the FDG-avid focus, despite electrographic burst suppression, guided successful treatment through escalation of immunosuppressive therapy.

conclusionsIn appropriately selected patients, FDG-PET scans while in burst suppression may help dissect the underlying pathophysiologic cause of IIC findings observed on EEG and guide tailored therapy.

Indexed as

Fluorodeoxyglucose F18Status EpilepticusElectroencephalographyHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingPositron-Emission TomographySeizuresFluorodeoxyglucose F18Burst suppressionElectroclinical seizuresFDG-PETIctal–interictal continuum

Identifiers

PMID32253731
OpenAlexW3014175331

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.