• 1.

    Noachtar S, Binnie C, Ebersole J, et al. A glossary of terms most commonly used by clinical electroencephalographers and proposal for the report form for the EEG findings. The International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Suppl1999;(52): 2141.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Reilly EL. EEG recording and operation of the apparatus. In: Niedermeyer E, Lopes da Silva F, eds. Electroencephalography: basic principles, clinical applications, and related fields. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 2004; 139159.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Ives JR, Rotenberg A, Poma R, et al. Electroencephalographic recording during transcranial magnetic stimulation in humans and animals. Clin Neurophysiol 2006; 117:18701875.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Young GB, Ives JR, Chapman MG, et al. A comparison of subdermal wire electrodes with collodion-applied disk electrodes in long-term EEG recordings in ICU. Clin Neurophysiol 2006; 117:13761379.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Kamp A, Pfurtscheller G, Edlinger G, et al. Technological basis of EEG recording. In: Niedermeyer E, Lopes da Silva F, eds. Electroencephalography: basic principles, clinical applications, and related fields. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 2004;127138.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Mirsattari SM, Ives JR, Bihari F, et al. Real-time display of artifact-free electroencephalography during functional magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy in an animal model of epilepsy. Magn Reson Med 2005; 53:456464.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Steiss JE. A survey of current techniques in veterinary electro-diagnostics: EEG, spinal evoked and brainstem auditory evoked potential recording. Vet Res Commun 1988; 12:281288.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Scheuer M. Continuous EEG monitoring in the intensive care unit. Epilepsia 2002; 43(suppl 3):114127.

  • 9.

    Serrano S, Hughes D, Chandler K. Use of ketamine for the management of refractory status epilepticus in a dog. J Vet Intern Med 2006; 20:194197.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Ives JR. New chronic EEG electrode for critical/intensive care unit monitoring. J Clin Neurophysiol 2005; 22:119123.

  • 11.

    Mirsattari SM, Ives JR, Jones D, et al. MRI compatible EEG electrode system for routine use in the epilepsy monitoring unit and intensive care unit. Clin Neurophysiol 2004; 115:21752180.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Mirsattari SM, Ives JR, Leung LS, et al. EEG monitoring during functional MRI in animal models. Epilepsia 2007; 48:3746.

  • 13.

    Klem G. Artifacts. In: Ebersole J, Pedley T, eds. Current practice of clinical electroencephalography. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 2003; 271287.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Young GB, Campbell VC. EEG monitoring in the intensive care unit: pitfalls and caveats. J Clin Neurophysiol 1999; 16:4045.

  • 15.

    Jasper HH. The ten twenty electrode system of the International Federation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1958; 10:371375.

  • 16.

    Pellegrino FC, Sica RE. Canine electroencephalographic recording technique: findings in normal and epileptic dogs. Clin Neurophysiol 2004; 115:477487.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Barlow JS. Automatic elimination of electrode-pop artifacts in EEG's. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1986; 33:517521.

  • 18.

    Ward MP, Rajdev P, Ellison C, et al. Toward a comparison of microelectrodes for acute and chronic recordings. Brain Res 2009; 1282:183200.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Mase H, Tamura K, Hiromoto A, et al. Histopathological study of tissue reaction to pacemaker electrodes implanted in the endocardium. J Nippon Med Sch 2005; 72:5259.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Williams DC, Aleman M, Holliday TA, et al. Qualitative and quantitative characteristics of the electroencephalogram in normal horses during spontaneous drowsiness and sleep. J Vet Intern Med 2008; 22:630638.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Croft P. The EEG as an aid to diagnosis of nervous diseases in the dog and cat. J Small Anim Pract 1962; 3:205213.

  • 22.

    Fox MW. Postnatal development of the EEG in the dog. I. Introduction and EEG techniques. J Small Anim Pract 1967; 8:7176.

  • 23.

    Holliday TA, Cunningham JG, Gutnick MJ. Comparative clinical and electroencephalographic studies of canine epilepsy. Epilepsia 1970; 11:281292.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Holliday TA, Williams DC. Interictal paroxysmal discharges in the electroencephalograms of epileptic dogs. Clin Tech Small Anim Pract 1998; 13:132143.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    Holliday TA, Williams C. Clinical electroencephalography in dogs. Vet Neurol Neurosurg J 1999; 1:138.

  • 26.

    Redman HC, Wilson GL, Hogan JE. Effect of chlorpromazine combined with intermittent light stimulation on the electroencephalogram and clinical response of the Beagle dog. Am J Vet Res 1973; 34:929936.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    Jaggy A, Bernardini M. Idiopathic epilepsy in 125 dogs: a long-term study. Clinical and electroencephalographic findings. J Small Anim Pract 1998; 39:2329.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Investigation of the use of three electroencephalographic electrodes for long-term electroencephalographic recording in awake and sedated dogs

Fiona M. K. James DVM, MSc1, Dana G. Allen DVM, MSc2, Alexa M. E. Bersenas DVM3, W. Larry Grovum PhD4, Carolyn L. Kerr DVM, DVSc, PhD5, Gabrielle Monteith BS6, Joane M. Parent DMV, MVetSc7, and Roberto Poma DMV, DVSc8
View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.
  • | 2 Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.
  • | 3 Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.
  • | 4 Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.
  • | 5 Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.
  • | 6 Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.
  • | 7 Département de Sciences Cliniques, Faculté de Médecine Vétérinaire, Université de Montréal, St-Hyacinthe, QCJ2S 7C6, Canada.
  • | 8 Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada.

Abstract

Objective—To compare electroencephalography (EEG) artifact associated with use of the subdermal wire electrode (SWE), gold cup electrode (GCE), and subdermal needle electrode (SNE) over an 8-hour period in sedated and awake dogs.

Animals—6 healthy dogs.

Procedures—8 EEG channels were recorded during 20-minute video-EEG recording sessions (intermittently at 0.5, 2, 4, 6, and 8 hours) with and without chlorpromazine sedation. Nonphysiologic artifacts were identified. Duration of artifact was summed for each channel. Number of unaffected channels (NUC) was determined.

Results—NUC was significantly affected by electrode type and sedation over time; median for SWE (2.80 channels; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 5.70 channels) was significantly different from medians for GCE (7.87 channels; 95% CI, 7.44 to 7.94 channels) and SNE (7.60 channels; 95% CI, 6.61 to 7.89 channels). After 4 hours, NUC decreased in awake dogs, regardless of electrode type. In awake dogs, duration of artifact differed significantly between SWE and GCE or SNE; medians at 8 hours were 61.55 seconds (95% CI, 21.81 to 173.65 seconds), 1.33 seconds (95% CI, 0.47 to 3.75 seconds), and 21.01 seconds (95% CI, 6.85 to 64.42 seconds), respectively.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—The SWE had a significant duration of artifact during recording periods > 2 hours, compared with results for the GCE and SNE, in awake dogs. The GCE, SNE, and sedation resulted in significantly more channels unaffected by artifact. For longer recordings, caution should be exercised in selecting EEG electrodes and sedation state, although differences among electrodes may not be clinically relevant.

Abstract

Objective—To compare electroencephalography (EEG) artifact associated with use of the subdermal wire electrode (SWE), gold cup electrode (GCE), and subdermal needle electrode (SNE) over an 8-hour period in sedated and awake dogs.

Animals—6 healthy dogs.

Procedures—8 EEG channels were recorded during 20-minute video-EEG recording sessions (intermittently at 0.5, 2, 4, 6, and 8 hours) with and without chlorpromazine sedation. Nonphysiologic artifacts were identified. Duration of artifact was summed for each channel. Number of unaffected channels (NUC) was determined.

Results—NUC was significantly affected by electrode type and sedation over time; median for SWE (2.80 channels; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 5.70 channels) was significantly different from medians for GCE (7.87 channels; 95% CI, 7.44 to 7.94 channels) and SNE (7.60 channels; 95% CI, 6.61 to 7.89 channels). After 4 hours, NUC decreased in awake dogs, regardless of electrode type. In awake dogs, duration of artifact differed significantly between SWE and GCE or SNE; medians at 8 hours were 61.55 seconds (95% CI, 21.81 to 173.65 seconds), 1.33 seconds (95% CI, 0.47 to 3.75 seconds), and 21.01 seconds (95% CI, 6.85 to 64.42 seconds), respectively.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—The SWE had a significant duration of artifact during recording periods > 2 hours, compared with results for the GCE and SNE, in awake dogs. The GCE, SNE, and sedation resulted in significantly more channels unaffected by artifact. For longer recordings, caution should be exercised in selecting EEG electrodes and sedation state, although differences among electrodes may not be clinically relevant.

Contributor Notes

This manuscript represents a portion of a thesis submitted by the senior author to the University of Guelph Office of Graduate Studies as partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Doctor of Veterinary Science degree.

Supported by grants from the Ontario Veterinary College Pet Trust and the Canadian Foundation for Innovation.

Presented in part as an oral abstract at the 26th Annual American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine Forum, Montreal, June 2009.

The authors thank Robert Cook and John R. Ives for technical assistance.

Address correspondence to Dr. James (jamesf@uoguelph.ca).

Deceased.