CAJ | 학술논문

目的探讨定量脑电图(quantitative elect roencep halograp hy,qEEG)对大面积大脑中动脉供血区梗死(large middle cerebral artery infarction,LMCAI)患者预后的预测价值.方法在脑梗死发病后72 h内记录患者的常规脑电图、qEEG和格拉斯哥昏迷量表(Glasgow Coma Scale,GCS)评分结果,在发病1个月后评价近期预后(死亡或存活),在发病3个月后评价远期预后,对各预后组各项观察数据进行比较.结果共纳入105例患者,近期存活组与死亡组之间振幅整合脑电图(amplitude integratedelectroencephalogram,aEEG)边界[上边界:(19.11±7.80)μV对(11.87±6.41) μV;t=2.392,P=0.019;下边界:(11.90±4.78)μV对(7.58 ±4.15)μV;t =3.327,P=0.022]、Synek分级(x2=48.114,P =0.000)存在显著性差异；左侧LMCAI患者β活动绝对功率[(13.16±12.66) μV2对(19.20±17.96)μV2;t=-2.781,P=0.039]和频谱边缘频率95％(spectral edge frequency 95％,SEF95％)[(9.17±3.24)Hz对(10.36±3.76)Hz；t=- 5.614,P=0.002)存在显著性差异.远期预后良好组与预后不良组之间年龄[ (59.33±13.67)岁对(68.87±10.473)岁；t=-3.215,P=0.002]、GCS评分[(10.86±2.80)分对(9.21±2.51)分；t=2.511,P=0.015]、SEF95％[(13.80±5.40)Hz对(10.93±4.68)Hz;t =2.311,P=0.024]和梗死侧别(x2=4.737,p=0.030)存在显著性差异.结论 qEEG可作为预测LMCAI患者预后的一种有效监测手段.
목적 탐토정량뇌전도(quantitative elect roencep halograp hy,qEEG)대대면적대뇌중동맥공혈구경사(large middle cerebral artery infarction,LMCAI)환자예후적예측개치.방법 재뇌경사발병후72 h내기록환자적상규뇌전도、qEEG화격랍사가혼미량표(Glasgow Coma Scale,GCS)평분결과,재발병1개월후평개근기예후(사망혹존활),재발병3개월후평개원기예후,대각예후조각항관찰수거진행비교.결과 공납입105례환자,근기존활조여사망조지간진폭정합뇌전도(amplitude integratedelectroencephalogram,aEEG)변계[상변계:(19.11±7.80)μV대(11.87±6.41) μV;t=2.392,P=0.019;하변계:(11.90±4.78)μV대(7.58 ±4.15)μV;t =3.327,P=0.022]、Synek분급(x2=48.114,P =0.000)존재현저성차이；좌측LMCAI환자β활동절대공솔[(13.16±12.66) μV2대(19.20±17.96)μV2;t=-2.781,P=0.039]화빈보변연빈솔95％(spectral edge frequency 95％,SEF95％)[(9.17±3.24)Hz대(10.36±3.76)Hz；t=- 5.614,P=0.002)존재현저성차이.원기예후량호조여예후불량조지간년령[ (59.33±13.67)세대(68.87±10.473)세；t=-3.215,P=0.002]、GCS평분[(10.86±2.80)분대(9.21±2.51)분；t=2.511,P=0.015]、SEF95％[(13.80±5.40)Hz대(10.93±4.68)Hz;t =2.311,P=0.024]화경사측별(x2=4.737,p=0.030)존재현저성차이.결론 qEEG가작위예측LMCAI환자예후적일충유효감측수단.
Objective To study the prognostic predictive value of quantitative dectroencephalography (qEEG)for patients with large middle cerebral artery infarction (LMCAI).Methods The scores of routine electroencephalography (EEG),qEEG and the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of the patients within 72 hours after symptom onset were recorded.The short-term prognosis (death or survival) was evaluated at 1 month after the onset.The long-term prognosis (good or poor) was evaluated at 3 months after the onset.All the observed data in each prognostic group were compared.Results A total of 105 patients were included in the study.There were significant differences in the margin of amplitude integrated electroencephalogram (aEEG) (upper margin:19.11 ± 7.80 μV vs.11.87 ±6.41 μV;t =2.392,P =0.019; lower margin:11.90 ± 4.78 μV vs.7.58 ± 4.15 μV; t =3.327,P =0.022),Synek-classification (x2 =48.114,P =0.000) between the short-term survival group and the death group; in patients with left LMCAI,there were significant differences in the absolute energy of the β-activity (13.16 ± 12.66 μV2 vs.19.20 ± 17.96 μV2;t =-2.781,P =0.039),spectral edge frequency 95％ (SEF95％) (9.17 ± 3.24 Hz vs.10.36 ± 3.76 Hz; t =-5.614,P =0.002) between the short-term survival group and the death group.There were significant differences in the age (59.33 ±13.67 years vs.68.87± 10.473 years; t =-3.215,P =0.002),GCS scores (10.86±2.80 vs.9.21 ±2.51;t =2.511,P =0.015),SEF95％ (13.80 ±5.40 Hz vs.10.93 ±4.68 Hz; t ＝2.311,P =0.024) and sides of infarction (x2 =4.737,P =0.030) between the long-term good prognosis group and the poor prognosis group.Conclusion qEEG can be used as an effective means of monitoring for evaluating the prognosis of patients with LMCAI.