Skip to main content
. 2019 Jan 25;4(1):10–29. doi: 10.1002/epi4.12298

Table 4.

Etiology vs EEG

EEG n (%) Generalized
Focal Multifocal Burst‐suppression
Etiology (n)
Hypoxic‐ischemic encephalopathy (n = 6) 4 (66.7%) 2 (33.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Cortical malformations (n = 3) 2 (66.7%) 1 (33.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
CNS infection (n = 4) 1 (25.0%) 3 (75.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Metabolic/vitamins disorders (n = 19)
Electrolyte imbalance (n = 3) 3 (100%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Inborn errors of metabolism (n = 3) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (100%)** 0 (0.0%)
vitamin‐related disorders (n = 11) 1 (9.1%) 7 (63.6%) 3 (27.3%)* 0 (0.0%)
Withdrawal (n = 2) 2 (100%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Genetic disorders
Channelopathies (n = 67) 10 (14.9%) 22 (32.8%) 34 (50.7%) 1 (1.5%)
Chromosomal disorder (n = 3) 0 (0.0%) 3 (100%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Other gene disorders (n = 7) 1 (14.3%) 0 (0.0%) 6 (85.7%)** 0 (0.0%)
Vascular disorders
Stroke (n = 25) 22 (88.0%) 2 (8.0%) 1 (4.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Hemorrhage (n = 8) 7 (87.5%) 1 (12.5%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Undetermined/unknown (n = 9) 3 (33.3%) 5 (55.6%) 1 (11.1%)* 0 (0.0%)

CNS, central nervous system. Burst‐suppression was described as an ictal pattern *in 2 neonates (one with vitamin‐related disorder and one with unknown etiology) and as an interictal pattern **in eight (3 with inborn errors of metabolism, 3 with other gene disorders, and 2 with vitamin‐related disorders); in the remaining cases, it was not clearly defined as an ictal or interictal pattern/background abnormality.