Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Feb 3;16(2):e0240507. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240507

Carbogen inhalation during non-convulsive status epilepticus: A quantitative exploratory analysis of EEG recordings

S Ramaraju 1,*, S Reichert 2, Y Wang 1, R Forsyth 3,, P N Taylor 1,
Editor: Andrea Romigi4
PMCID: PMC7857554  PMID: 33534850

Abstract

Objective

To quantify the effect of inhaled 5% carbon-dioxide/95% oxygen on EEG recordings from patients in non-convulsive status epilepticus (NCSE).

Methods

Five children of mixed aetiology in NCSE were given high flow of inhaled carbogen (5% carbon dioxide/95% oxygen) using a face mask for maximum 120s. EEG was recorded concurrently in all patients. The effects of inhaled carbogen on patient EEG recordings were investigated using band-power, functional connectivity and graph theory measures. Carbogen effect was quantified by measuring effect size (Cohen’s d) between “before”, “during” and “after” carbogen delivery states.

Results

Carbogen’s apparent effect on EEG band-power and network metrics across all patients for “before-during” and “before-after” inhalation comparisons was inconsistent across the five patients.

Conclusion

The changes in different measures suggest a potentially non-homogeneous effect of carbogen on the patients’ EEG. Different aetiology and duration of the inhalation may underlie these non-homogeneous effects. Tuning the carbogen parameters (such as ratio between CO2 and O2, duration of inhalation) on a personalised basis may improve seizure suppression in future.

1. Introduction

Status epilepticus (SE) is a situation of continuing seizure activity or repetitive seizures without recovery lasting (by convention) over 30 minutes [1]. Morbidity and mortality are affected by factors including age, aetiology and time to first treatment [2, 3]. Non-Convulsive Status Epilepticus (NCSE) is a subtype of SE again of varied aetiology [4], and is characterised by more subtle SE without prominent motor signs but generally reduced awareness of surroundings and responsiveness [5]. NCSE is often observed in the context of pre-existing neurological conditions such as injury and neurogenetic syndromes associated with severe epilepsy or learning difficulties [6]. NCSE should be suspected in children with epilepsy who undergo an otherwise unexplained deterioration in behaviour, speech, memory, or school performance [6].

Many treatments for convulsive SE have anaesthetic or sedative properties. This is disadvantageous in NCSE as sedation can activate NCSE and children are at increased prior risk of respiratory problems [7]. The ideal treatment in this case would be immediate acting, non-drowsy, maintaining respiratory function and acting for a sustained period. Tolner et al. [8], showed that induction of temporary mild respiratory acidosis (reduction of pH levels) by inhaling carbogen (5% carbon dioxide and 95% oxygen) has anticonvulsant action, and this would be of potential value in NCSE. Carbogen has shown to terminate acute onset seizures in rats, non-human primates and adult humans [915].

During NSCE, electroencephalographic (EEG) activity is abnormal. Patient EEG dynamics can include pathological polyspike & slow waves, generalised slowing, and burst-suppression [16]. The effect of carbogen on NCSE EEG is not well understood, however. To quantify changes in EEG dynamics, several methods are available. Band-power analysis shows EEG signal power in particular frequency bands, and functional connectivity–the inference of brain networks by measuring signal similarity—has been used widely in epilepsy to show cortical network organisation before, during, and after seizures [1621]. Graph theory metrics can further be applied to functional networks to assist interpretation, and elucidate specific aspects of the network. For example, clustering coefficient and path length are two graph theory measures commonly used to quantify local and global properties of a network [22]. These two measures have also been shown to vary over the course of a seizure [23].

In this exploratory study we investigated the effect of carbogen on band power and functional connectivity across five frequency sub-bands (delta, theta, alpha, beta and gamma). We hypothesised medium to large (cohen’s d >0.5) quantitative EEG changes during- and after-carbogen administration.

2. Methods

The study design and the data are available from Forsyth et al [7] as this is the follow up study. The methods are organized in five main sections: (1) patient information and the corresponding EEG recordings, (2) data pre-processing, (3) band-power analysis, (4) graph-theoretical measures, and (5) statistical analysis. Fig 1 summarises the whole analysis pipeline.

Fig 1. Analysis Pipeline (A-F).

Fig 1

(A). Pre-processed EEG signal in “before”, “during” and “after” states (B). Band-power computed across all the channels for every sliding window (C). Windowed band-power across all the channels used for topographic and spatial average time series plots. (D-E) windowed correlations matrices for every sliding window and then averaged over time (F). Illustrative networks demonstrating path length and clustering coefficient. (G) Pre-processed EEG time series for two example locations for Patient 3.

2.1 Patient information and recordings

The study received full Research Ethics approval from the UK NHS Health Research Authority research ethics service (North East Tyne & Wear South Research Ethics Committee; reference 12/NE/0005, 1804/2020) and was registered as clinical trial (EudraCT 2011-005318-12). The approach to obtaining consent from families aimed to avoid time pressure in reaching a decision. If NCSE was a diagnostic possibility and an EEG was planned, the study was explained to families and an unhurried opportunity for questions was offered, before parents provided written consent for participation in principle in the study, in the understanding that at that point NCSE was not confirmed. The child then was transferred to the EEG department and neurophysiological monitoring commenced. Only if the EEG confirmed NCSE however did the child receive carbogen [7].

Patients selected for this study had all been diagnosed with epilepsy with either known aetiologies or different underlying neurodevelopmental disabilities. Inclusion criteria included (i) confirmed NCSE, with EEG manifestation, and (ii) reduced awareness or function confirmed by a parent or carer. Patients requiring other urgent treatment, or patients with capillary pCO2>8kPa were excluded. Patient recruitment in the prospective trail was very slow despite opening the recruitment from additional centres. The recruitment was closed by Trial steering committee 30 months after recruiting the first child. This is done on the basis that substantial increases in recruitment rates were unrealistic. Forsyth et al [7] recruited six subjects, however, quality EEG recordings are available only for five of them. The mean age of the sample is 7± 3.85 years (mean ± standard deviation), of which four patients were male. Children in NCSE were given high flow inhaled carbogen by face mask for maximum 120s (113s±7s) with concurrent EEG measurement. All recordings were performed with a standard 10–20 clinical recording system [7]. EEG recording commenced a minimum of 10 minutes before commencing carbogen inhalation which was for 120s [7]. The clinical and demographic information of all patients in this study is summarised in Table 1.

Table 1. Clinical and demographic information of all patients.

Patient Gender Age [yrs] Aetiology Number of Electrodes Sampling rate [Hz] Pre-inhalation EEG-Duration [s] Post-inhalation EEG-Duration [s]
1 M 4 Angelman-Syndrom 20 500 1200 1158
2 F 10 Lissencephaly 19 256 1200 979
3 M 3 Lissencephaly (PAFAH1B1 mutation) 20 256 416 1128
4 M 13 Alper mitochondrial depletion syndrom (POLG1 mutation) 20 256 989 1532
5 M 5 Angelman 20 256 1200 1224

Patient EEG activity was recorded continuously 1001.08 ± 303.55s pre-inhalation, during inhalation, and 1204.3 ± 182.45s post carbogen inhalation. A provision in the protocol allowed for the premature discontinuation of inhalation if the clinicians (including parents) felt it was any distress [7]. The data were collected under to ethical guidelines and protocols were monitored by a responsible clinician.

2.2 Data pre-processing

The data was notched at 50Hz (to exclude power line interference), and band-pass filtered between 1 to 70Hz using forward and backward 2nd order Butterworth filter. Data was visually inspected for amplifier saturations or noisy channels; the eye blink-artefacts were rejected using Independent Component Analysis (ICA). For data analysis we extracted three epochs from the EEG data of every patient: “before” (immediately before inhalation of carbogen), “during” (during inhalation of carbogen) and “after” (immediately after inhalation of carbogen). The length of each epoch in “before” and “after” state is 120s. The length of epoch in “during” state varies between 106s-120 across the patients.

2.3 Band-power analysis

A two second sliding window with 50% overlap was used to extract absolute spectral power in five different frequency bands (delta: 1-4Hz, theta: 4–8 Hz, alpha: 8–13 Hz, beta: 13–30 Hz, and gamma: 30-70Hz) across each channel. The mean absolute powers (and the standard deviations) in each sliding window were averaged across windows for each frequency band, channel and patient. This gives five features per channel across three different states (before, during, and after) for each patient. This is visually summarised in Fig 1A–1C. The spatial average time series (average over all the channels) in broadband (1-70Hz) has also been plotted in Fig 2 across three states to visualise the effect of carbogen over time. The data was smoothed using a moving median filter (n = 31), to minimize the fluctuation of the signal for visualisation purpose, however, all the statistical calculations were carried out on original non-smoothed signal (S1 Fig).

Fig 2. Band-power analysis.

Fig 2

(A, D, G, I, K) Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) of the band power change of “before-during” and (B, E, H, J, L) “before-after” across five frequency bands. (C, F) Time series of the average band-power in broadband (1-70Hz) for Patient 3 and Patient 5 respectively. Positive effect size denotes decrement in absolute band power. Topographical maps are ordered as delta, theta, alpha, beta and gamma. The frames surrounding topographical maps signify difference in the respective states they are representing. For instance, Fig 2C has yellow, red, and blue colours over laid across before, during, and after epochs respectively and topographical maps in Fig 2A has “yellow-red” colour frame representing the effect size between “before-during” states.

2.4 Network construction & graph theory analysis

The same EEG segments (before, during, after) used in band-power analysis were also used here to calculate the functional connectivity (amplitude correlation) and graph theory measures. The data has been bandpass filtered in the above-mentioned frequency bands followed by a sliding window analysis, as in band-power analysis. Each window resulted in a functional connectivity matrix (absolute Pearson’s correlation matrix and diagonal correlation values were set to zero) through which graph theory measures (clustering coefficient and path length) were calculated using Brain Connectivity Toolbox [24]. This is visually depicted in Fig 1D–1F. The spatial average broadband functional connectivity, path length and clustering coefficient time series have been plotted in Fig 3 across three states to visualise the effect of carbogen across time.

Fig 3. Functional connectivity and graph-theory analysis.

Fig 3

(A, F, K, M, O) Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) of the functional connectivity change of “before-during” and (B, G, L, N, P) “before-after” for five Patients. (C, H) Time series of net (average) correlation coefficient in broadband (1-70Hz) for Patient 3 and Patient 5. (D, I) Time series of the net (average) path length in broadband (1-70Hz) for Patient 3 and Patient 5. (E, J) Time series of the net (average) clustering coefficient in broadband (1-70Hz) for Patient 3 and Patient 5. Positive effect size denotes decrement in functional connectivity. Topographical maps are ordered as delta, theta, alpha, beta and gamma. The frames surrounding topographical maps signify difference in the respective states they are representing. For instance, Fig 3C has yellow, red, and blue colours over laid across before, during, and after epochs respectively and topographical maps in Fig 3A has “yellow-red” colour frame representing the effect size between “before-during” states.

The data was smoothed using a moving median filter (n = 31), to minimize the fluctuation of the signal for visualisation purpose, however, all the statistical calculations were carried out on original non-smoothed signal which can be found in S2S4 Figs.

2.5 Statistical analysis

The effect size (Cohen’s d) comparing the states “before” to “during”, and “before” to “after” across all the channels and frequency bands was plotted in topographical plots in Fig 2. Additionally, we calculated the actual percentage change (Eq (1)) of the band-power from “before” to “during” and “before” to “after” states across all the electrodes for each patient in each frequency band. The percent changes are summarised in S5 Fig.

C=(BPpostBPpre)(BPpost+BPpre) (1)
BPpostisbandpowerin"during"or"after"states.
BPpreisbandpowerin"before"state.

The effect sizes were also calculated for the functional connectivity in each entry of the matrix. Only medium and large effect sizes (threshold > = 0.5) are displayed in Fig 3. The time varying net broadband functional connectivity (mean of connectivity matrix across every sliding window) is plotted in Fig 3.

Permutation test (10,000 permutations; mean) and Cohen’s d were used to quantify the effect of carbogen on patient’s EEG measures (band-power and functional connectivity). MATLAB was used to perform the above mentioned statistical tests.

3. Results

The results section is divided into two sections. First, the band-power analysis and second, the functional network analysis. For brevity, two example patients’ results are presented in full, with the remaining in the supplementary material.

3.1 Band power analysis

The effect size of the band-power across all channels in each frequency sub-band for each patient in the “before-during” and “before-after” comparison is summarised in Fig 2A, 2B, 2D, 2E, 2G–2L. The spatial average broadband time series and effect sizes show no clear or consistent pattern across all patients. In the “before-during” comparison, a positive effect indicates decrement of absolute band-power in “during” state relative to “before” state, whilst an increment indicates the opposite. The above statement also applies to the “before-after” comparison.

Fig 2C shows the net (spatial average) broadband time series for Patient 3. The effect sizes of “before-during” and “before-after” comparisons indicate small (d = 0.32, p = 0.03; d = -0.17, p = 0.30) effects. The effect sizes in “before-during” comparisons (Fig 2A) indicate a small effect across all the frequency bands. The same is observed in the “before-after” comparison with an exception in the gamma band. The effect size and p-values across every channel for “before-during” and “before-after” comparisons are summarised in S5 and S6 Tables. This result indicates a small effect of carbogen on the EEG band-power of Patient 3.

In contrast to Patient 3, large effects are observed in “before-during” and “before-after” comparisons for the EEG in Patient 5 (summarised in plots in Fig 2D and 2E). These effect sizes indicate the suppression of band-power especially in the lower frequency bands during and after carbogen inhalation. The effect size and p-values are summarised in S9 and S10 Tables. The suppression of band-power is visible in the sub-bands (Fig 2D and 2E), however, it cannot be observed in the average broadband time series in Fig 2F (“before-during”: d = -0.14; p = 0.47 and “before-after”: d = 0.01; p = 0.96).

The two representative patients: Patient 3 and Patient 5 indicates contrasting effects of carbogen across all the sub-bands and broadband. This non-homogenous effect of the carbogen on absolute band-powers is also observable across three other patients (Fig 2G–2L). The net broadband time series (for the remaining patients; S2F–S2H Fig) and normalised sub-band time series (for all the patients; A-E) can be found in S6 Fig. S11 and S12 Tables and S1S10 Tables contain the effect sizes and permutation test p-values for broadband time series and individual channels across all the sub-bands respectively.

3.2 Network analysis

3.2.1 Functional connectivity

In Patient 3 (Fig 3A and 3B), the functional connectivity in the “before-during” comparison does not show any medium or large effects (d > = 0.5) of the carbogen in the delta, theta or alpha sub-bands. Beta and gamma bands show reduction of the connectivity between few nodes. In the “before-after” (Fig 3B) comparison, carbogen shows only a small effect in the gamma band. The insignificance (d = 0.03, p = 0.82) of carbogen inhalation in “during” state, and significant effect on post inhalation (d = 0.31, p = 0.03) can also be seen in Fig 3C across the broadband time series.

Patient 5 on the other hand, shows a clear suppression in the net broadband functional connectivity when comparing “during” to “after” states (Fig 3H). This indicates a significant effect during carbogen inhalation (d = 0.82, p<0.001) and a small but significant effect in the “after” inhalation state (d = 0.42; p<0.001). The topographical plots in patient 5 (Fig 3F and 3G) also show contrasting results in comparison to Patient 3. In Fig 3F, the functional connectivity is suppressed in lower frequencies during carbogen inhalation, however, alpha and beta bands are less affected and also show some increment in connectivity. In the higher frequencies (gamma), the predominant effect of elevation in the connectivity between most nodes can be observed in the “before-during” comparison. The same observations can be made in the “before-after” comparison (Fig 3G).

The results of functional connectivity analysis of the other three patients also suggests this non-homogenous influence of carbogen on the EEG. The sub-band functional connectivity (S7A–S7E Fig) and broadband time series (S7F–S7H Fig) results for the remaining subjects are summarised in supplementary materials. The effect size and permutation test p-values for the remaining subjects can be found in S11 and S12 Tables respectively in supplementary materials.

3.2.2 Graph theory

The path length and average clustering coefficient in broadband for two representative patients is plotted as a time series in Fig 3D, 3E, 3I, 3J. In Patient 3, a significant (d = -0.36, p = 0.01) effect is observed in the “after” states (Fig 3D) in path length only. The net clustering coefficient also exhibits the similar property as path length.

In contrast to Patient 3, in Patient 5 (Fig 3I), the net path length has increased significantly in “during” (d = -0.88, p = 0.00) and “after” states (d = -0.41, p = 0.004; Fig 3I). However, clustering coefficient has been significantly supressed “during” (d = 0.81, p = 0.00) and “after” (d = 0.39, p = 0.007) inhalation of carbogen (Fig 3J). The results for the remaining subjects also show inconsistency in the effect of carbogen amongst them. The sub-band (S8A–S8E Fig) and broadband path length time series (S8F–S8H Fig) for the remaining subjects are summarised in supplementary materials. The sub-band (S9A–S9E Fig) and broadband clustering coefficient time series (S9F–S9H Fig) results for the remaining subjects are summarised in supplementary materials.

4. Discussion

The present work investigates the relationship between carbogen inhalation and quantitative EEG measures. Specifically, we compared spectral power, functional connectivity and graph theory measures “before” to “during” and “after” the inhalation of carbogen in paediatric NCSE. For these methods we did not find evidence to suggest a common effect of carbogen on NCSE EEG.

Lennox [9] applied 10% CO2 to successfully supress the spike wave EEG activity. This was extended in several studies on rodent, canine and non-human primate models [1012, 15, 25, 26]. 15–30% CO2 prevented electrically induced convulsions in psychiatric patients [10]. Tolner et al [8] in their pilot study on seven patients with drug resistant epilepsy used standard medical carbogen (5% CO2) and reported the rapid termination of electrographic seizures despite the fact that the application of carbogen was started after the seizure generalization. In the above study, none of the patients had any underlying neural disability except “epilepsy”. This is important to note because the cohort in our study has mixed aetiology.

The inhalation of carbogen induces a mild temporary acidosis (i.e. lowering pH) and when reduced to a critical value (blood pH-level<7.35) this is termed as acidaemia [27]. Acidosis attenuates excitatory neurotransmission by reducing NMDA-receptor activity [28] whilst enhancing inhibitory neurotransmission by facilitating the responsiveness of GABAA receptors [28]. Possible cellular mechanisms [29] involve direct effects of pH on voltage and ligand-gated ion channel conductance [15, 30, 31] and adenosine signalling [32]. Therefore, one may expect a decrease in the EEG band-power, which was also reported previously [33].

In Patient 3, no substantial effects were observed in “during” and “after” states relative to the “before” state. However, in Patient 5, carbogen delivery was associated with reduced correlation between the nodes (i.e. positive effect size) in lower frequency bands. This may be due to the fact that acidosis introduced by the carbogen might not be sufficient enough to supress the high frequency activity. A small, and insignificant change of path length and clustering coefficient in during state, can be observed in Patient 3. This might be due to the fact that carbogen was inhaled not at the seizure onset but very late into the seizure causing a delayed acidosis effect. This delayed effect might not be enough to terminate the seizure state and show change in EEG recordings. Application of carbogen immediately after the seizure onset might have strong anticonvulsant and therapeutic interventions [8].

Overall the effect of the carbogen on patient EEG was inconsistent across all measurements used. Note that although in our analysis no measure showed a consistent effect, this does not prohibit the possibility of the existence of a measure showing consistent effects across patients. In other words, absence of evidence does not necessarily represent evidence of absence and our finding should therefore be considered with this in mind. Our choices of measures are routine in the field of quantitative EEG analysis and have been shown to demonstrate differences in a wide range of settings [22, 3437]. Other factors for the ineffectiveness of carbogen might be, first, the lack of “aggressiveness” (concentration/duration), second, the heterogenety of the underlying aetiology of the patients, and third our limited sample size without a control arm of non-delivery of carbogen.

Even though carbogen has the potential to terminate NCSE seizures in humans, our results suggest possibly different effects in different subjects. This heterogeneity may be related to underlying aetiology, which should be considered in future studies.

Supporting information

S1 Fig

(A)-(E) Non-smoothed band power time series in broadband across three different states for five patients.

(DOCX)

S2 Fig. Non-smoothed correlation coefficient in broadband across three different states for five patients.

(DOCX)

S3 Fig. Non-smoothed path length time series in broadband across three different states for five patients.

(DOCX)

S4 Fig. Non-smoothed clustering coefficient time series in broadband across three different states for five patients.

(DOCX)

S5 Fig. Percentage change in band power.

The normalised percentage change in band power across different frequencies between A) “Before-During” state and B) “Before-After” state.

(DOCX)

S6 Fig. Band power time series.

(A)-(E) Sub-band normalised band power time series for Patient 1-Patient 5. (F)-(H) Broandband average time series for Patient 1, Patient 2 and Patient 4.

(DOCX)

S7 Fig. Correlation coefficient time series.

(A)-(E) Sub-band normalised correlation coefficient time series for Patient 1-Patient 5. (F)-(H) Broandband average time series for Patient 1, Patient 2 and Patient 4.

(DOCX)

S8 Fig. Path length time series.

(A)-(E) Sub-band path length time series for Patient 1-Patient 5. (F)-(H) Broandband path length time series for Patient 1, Patient 2 and Patient 4.

(DOCX)

S9 Fig. Clustering coefficient time series.

(A)-(E) Sub-band normalised clustering coefficient time series for Patient 1-Patient 5. (F)-(H) Broandband average time series for Patient 1, Patient 2 and Patient 4.

(DOCX)

S1 Table. Patient 1 Effect size (Effect size d-values) for all the channels across all the frequency bands for before-during and before-after state.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Patient 1 Permutation test p-values (FDR corrected) for all the channels across all frequency sub-bands in before-during and before-after state.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Patient 2 Effect size (Effect size d-values) for all the channels across all the frequency bands for before-during and before-after state.

(DOCX)

S4 Table. Patient 2 Permutation test p-values (FDR corrected) for all the channels across all frequency sub-bands in before-during and before-after state.

(DOCX)

S5 Table. Patient 3 Effect size (Effect size d-values) for all the channels across all the frequency bands for before-during and before-after state.

(DOCX)

S6 Table. Patient 3 Permutation test p-values (FDR corrected) for all the channels across all frequency sub-bands in before-during and before-after state.

(DOCX)

S7 Table. Patient 4 Effect size (Cohen’s d–values) for all the channels across all the frequency bands for before-during and before-after state.

(DOCX)

S8 Table. Patient 4 Permutation test p-values (FDR corrected) for all the channels across all frequency sub-bands in before-during and before-after state.

(DOCX)

S9 Table. Patient 5 Effect size (Cohen’s d–values) for all the channels across all the frequency bands for before-during and before-after state.

(DOCX)

S10 Table. Patient 5 Permutation test p-values (FDR corrected) for all the channels across all frequency sub-bands in before-during and before-after state.

(DOCX)

S11 Table. Effect size (Cohen’s d–values) for broadband power time series, functional connectivity time series, path length time series, and clustering coefficient time series.

(DOCX)

S12 Table. Permutation test p-values for broadband band power time series, functional connectivity time series, path length time series, and clustering coefficient time series.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

None of the authors have any conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Data Availability

Data and code is available via Figshare: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13239719.v2.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by Epilepsy Research UK to Dr R Forsyth(P1103) and Wellcome Trust (210109/Z/18/Z) to Dr P N Taylor.

References

  • 1.DeLorenzo RJ, Waterhouse EJ, Towne AR, Boggs JG, Ko D, DeLorenzo GA, et al. Persistent nonconvulsive status epilepticus after the control of convulsive status epilepticus. Epilepsia 1998;39(8):833–40. 10.1111/j.1528-1157.1998.tb01177.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lowenstein DH, Alldredge BK. Status epilepticus at an urban public hospital in the 1980s. Neurology 1993;43(3 Part 1):483–. 10.1212/wnl.43.3_part_1.483 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Towne AR, Pellock JM, Ko D, DeLorenzo RJ. Determinants of mortality in status epilepticus. Epilepsia 1994;35(1):27–34. 10.1111/j.1528-1157.1994.tb02908.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Maganti R, Gerber P, Drees C, Chung S. Nonconvulsive status epilepticus. Epilepsy Behav 2008;12(4):572–86. 10.1016/j.yebeh.2007.12.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Walker MC. Treatment of Nonconvulsive Status Epilepticus International Review of Neurobiology. Academic Press; 2007, p. 287–97. 10.1016/S0074-7742(06)81019-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Galimi R. Nonconvulsive status epilepticus in pediatric populations: diagnosis and management. Minerva Pediatr 2012;64(3):347–55. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Forsyth R, Martland T, Lai M, Vadlamani G, Hogan V. 5% Carbon Dioxide is safe but of limited efficacy as a treatment for paediatric non-convulsive status epilepticus: An open label observational study. European Journal of Paediatric Neurology 2016;20(4):560–5. 10.1016/j.ejpn.2016.04.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Tolner EA, Hochman DW, Hassinen P, Otáhal J, Gaily E, Haglund MM, et al. Five percent CO2 is a potent, fast‐acting inhalation anticonvulsant. Epilepsia 2011;52(1):104–14. 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2010.02731.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lennox WG, Gibbs FA, Gibbs EL. Effect on the electro-encephalogram of drugs and conditions which influence seizures. Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry 1936;36(6):1236–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Pollock GH, Stein S, Gyarfas K. Central inhibitory effects of carbon dioxide. III. Man. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 1949;70(2):291–2. 10.3181/00379727-70-16902 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Pollock GH. Central inhibitory effects of carbon dioxide: I. Felis domesticus. Journal of Neurophysiology 1949;12(5):315–24. 10.1152/jn.1949.12.5.315 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Dahlberg-Parrow R. The effect of hypercapnia and hypoxia on electrically induced convulsions in rabbits. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica 1951;23(1):55–63. 10.1111/j.1748-1716.1951.tb00794.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Woodbury DM, Rollins LT, Henrie JR, Jones JC, Sato T. Effects of carbon dioxide and oxygen on properties of experimental seizures in mice. American Journal of Physiology-Legacy Content 1955;184(1):202–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Meyer JS GF, Tazaki Y. Inhibitory action of carbon dioxide and acetazolamide in seizure activity Electroencephalogr Clinical Neurophysiology 1961(13):762–75. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ziemann AE, Schnizler MK, Albert GW, Severson MA, Howard Iii MA, Welsh MJ, et al. Seizure termination by acidosis depends on ASIC1a. Nature neuroscience 2008;11(7):816 10.1038/nn.2132 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Sutter R, Kaplan PW. Electroencephalographic criteria for nonconvulsive status epilepticus: synopsis and comprehensive survey. Epilepsia 2012;53 Suppl 3:1–51. 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2012.03593.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Burianova H, Faizo NL, Gray M, Hocking J, Galloway G, Reutens D. Altered functional connectivity in mesial temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsy Res 2017;137:45–52. 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2017.09.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tracy JI, Doucet GE. Resting-state functional connectivity in epilepsy: growing relevance for clinical decision making. Curr Opin Neurol 2015;28(2):158–65. 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000178 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Abreu R, Leal A, Figueiredo P. Identification of epileptic brain states by dynamic functional connectivity analysis of simultaneous EEG-fMRI: a dictionary learning approach. Sci Rep 2019;9(1):638 10.1038/s41598-018-36976-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Beniczky S, Hirsch LJ, Kaplan PW, Pressler R, Bauer G, Aurlien H, et al. Unified EEG terminology and criteria for nonconvulsive status epilepticus. Epilepsia 2013;54 Suppl 6:28–9 10.1111/epi.12270 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kaplan PW. EEG criteria for nonconvulsive status epilepticus. Epilepsia 2007;48(s8):39–41. 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2007.01345.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Bullmore E, Sporns O. Complex brain networks: graph theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2009;10:186 10.1038/nrn2575 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Schindler KA, Bialonski S, Horstmann MT, Elger CE, Lehnertz K. Evolving functional network properties and synchronizability during human epileptic seizures. Chaos 2008;18(3):033119 10.1063/1.2966112 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Rubinov M, Sporns O. Complex network measures of brain connectivity: Uses and interpretations. NeuroImage 2010;52(3):1059–69. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Mitchell WG, Grubbs RC. Inhibition of audiogenic seizures by carbon dioxide. Science 1956;123(3189):223–4. 10.1126/science.123.3189.223 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Balestrino M, Somjen G. Concentration of carbon dioxide, interstitial pH and synaptic transmission in hippocampal formation of the rat. The Journal of Physiology 1988;396(1):247–66. 10.1113/jphysiol.1988.sp016961 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hamilton PK, Morgan NA, Connolly GM, Maxwell AP. Understanding Acid-Base Disorders. The Ulster medical journal 2017;86(3):161–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Brodie MJ, Sills GJ. Combining antiepileptic drugs—Rational polytherapy? Seizure 2011;20(5):369–75. 10.1016/j.seizure.2011.01.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Chesler M. Regulation and modulation of pH in the brain. Physiological reviews 2003;83(4):1183–221. 10.1152/physrev.00010.2003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Traynelis SF, Hartley M, Heinemann SF. Control of proton sensitivity of the NMDA receptor by RNA splicing and polyamines. Science 1995;268(5212):873–6. 10.1126/science.7754371 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Pasternack M, Smirnov S, Kaila K. Proton modulation of functionally distinct GABAA receptors in acutely isolated pyramidal neurons of rat hippocampus. Neuropharmacology 1996;35(9–10):1279–88. 10.1016/s0028-3908(96)00075-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Dulla CG, Frenguelli BG, Staley KJ, Masino SA. Intracellular acidification causes adenosine release during states of hyperexcitability in the hippocampus. J Neurophysiol 2009;102(3):1984–93. 10.1152/jn.90695.2008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Bloch-Salisbury E, Lansing R, Shea SA. Acute changes in carbon dioxide levels alter the electroencephalogram without affecting cognitive function. Psychophysiology 2000;37(4):418–26. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Douw L, van Dellen E, de Groot M, Heimans JJ, Klein M, Stam CJ, et al. Epilepsy is related to theta band brain connectivity and network topology in brain tumor patients. BMC Neuroscience 2010b;11(1):103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Douw L, de Groot M, van Dellen E, Heimans JJ, Ronner HE, Stam CJ, et al. ‘Functional Connectivity’ Is a Sensitive Predictor of Epilepsy Diagnosis after the First Seizure. PloS one 2010a;5(5):e10839. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Guo L, Rivero D, Pazos A. Epileptic seizure detection using multiwavelet transform based approximate entropy and artificial neural networks. J Neurosci Methods 2010;193(1):156–63. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.08.030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Lee J, Park J, Yang S, Kim H, Choi YS, Kim HJ, et al. Early Seizure Detection by Applying Frequency-Based Algorithm Derived from the Principal Component Analysis. Frontiers in neuroinformatics 2017;11:52–. 10.3389/fninf.2017.00052 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Andrea Romigi

3 Mar 2020

PONE-D-19-31394

Carbogen inhalation during Non-Convulsive Status Epilepticus: A quantitative analysis of EEG recordings

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Ramaraju,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:Although the topic is quite novel I share the main criticisms by both reviewers that. The authors should perform the quantitative characterization in relation to outcome. In addition Ethics approval for the retrospective study should be obtained;Inclusion and exclusion criteria should be specified; which EEG procedure was used to test Carbogen efficacy? Statistical analysis: should be explained; 

==============================

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Apr 17 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Andrea Romigi, M.D., Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

 

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please state in your methods section whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB approved the lack of parent or guardian consent.

3. Thank you for including your ethics statement:

'The study received full ethics review and approval (REC reference 12/NE/0005) and was registered as clinical trail (EudraCT 2011-005318-12). Because final confirmation of eligibility required confirmation of NCSE on EEG, written “consent in principle” to participate in the study was obtained with final verbal consent to proceed once NCSE was confirmed electrographically. '

a. Please amend your current ethics statement to include the ** full name ** of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study.

b. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a report of the study on carbogen inhalation during Non-Convulsive Status Epilepticus: A quantitative analysis of EEG recordings.

Below are some comments:

- The objective of the study was to ‘quantify the effect of inhaled 5% carbon-dioxide/95% oxygen on EEG recordings from patients in non-convulsive status epilepticus (NCSE)’. The objective was however, not followed by a precise/clear hypothesis. Neither did the authors mention how the sample size of 5 patients derived (no description on how the study was powered, and no description on what was the targeted effect size).

- In addition to small sample size of 5 patients, patients enrolled in the study had quite diverse etiology and hence introducing heterogeneity in the selected population. This raises some questions on the usefulness of the current analysis

- Patients selection was retrospective and this added heterogeneity in the selected samples/patients. Normally in such a retrospective study, larger sample size is expected to compensate for the heterogeneity due to not being able to make a proper selection of patients. Again this restriction in addition to very small sample size should be explained and addressed.

- Restriction of the retrospective analysis also applies in the treatment onset, as there were indications that some patients may receive the treatment (carbogen) in different time frame (onset) than other. This adds further heterogeneity in the collected data.

- Lacking of control arm (i.e. patients not receiving any treatment) in this analysis make the data interpretation is difficult. Even though the nature of the data is longitudinal/time series in which some parts in each patient exposed to treatment and the rest not, which implies that patient can become their own control for different phases they involved during the study, but in the event of inconsistent results as currently observed, the existence of non-exposed patients might have helped the interpretation.

- The time series analysis may have quite large data on EEG collected longitudinally, yet the experimental unit of this study is patient. With this restriction, it is difficult if possible at all to make any conclusion from this analysis.

- Page 8: ‘Because final confirmation of eligibility required confirmation of NCSE on EEG, written “consent in principle” to participate in the study was obtained with final verbal consent to proceed once NCSE was confirmed electrographically’. How many patients were screened out and declared ineligible?

Reviewer #2: Manuscript number: PONE-D-19-31394

Reviewer’s Comments:

The manuscript presents a quantitative analysis of EEG recordings of carbogen inhalation during NCSE. The study described in this manuscript is interesting but the following points need to be addressed:

1) quantitative characterization should be performed in relation to outcome

2) Ethics approval for the retrospective study should be obtained

3) inclusion and exclusion criteria are missed

4) EEG procedures should be added

5) Statistical analysis: please specify which tests were applied for comparisons and the statistical software used

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Feb 3;16(2):e0240507. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240507.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


24 May 2020

Reviewer #1:

This is a report of the study on carbogen inhalation during Non-Convulsive Status Epilepticus: A quantitative analysis of EEG recordings.

Below are some comments:

We thank the reviewer for their review and comments which we address below.

- The objective of the study was to ‘quantify the effect of inhaled 5% carbon-dioxide/95% oxygen on EEG recordings from patients in non-convulsive status epilepticus (NCSE)’. The objective was however, not followed by a precise/clear hypothesis.

The hypothesis is now added to the manuscript in the introduction. “We hypothesised quantitative EEG changes during- and after-carbogen administration.”

Neither did the authors mention how the sample size of 5 patients derived (no description on how the study was powered, and no description on what was the targeted effect size).

We used all data from all patients with pre- during- and post-carbogen administration available from Forsyth et al (2016), which contains further details pertaining to study power. We wish to highlight that the 2016 study was originally to evaluate the safety and efficacy of low dose carbogen administration. Our present study is an opportunistic retrospective analysis of that unique and rare prospective clinical trial data.

- In addition to small sample size of 5 patients, patients enrolled in the study had quite diverse etiology and hence introducing heterogeneity in the selected population. This raises some questions on the usefulness of the current analysis

We acknowledge the reviewer’s comment. We include the following in discussion.

“Other factors for the ineffectiveness of carbogen might be, first, the lack of “aggressiveness” (concentration/duration), second, the heterogeneity of the underlying aetiology of the patients, and third our limited sample size.”

- Patients selection was retrospective and this added heterogeneity in the selected samples/patients. Normally in such a retrospective study, larger sample size is expected to compensate for the heterogeneity due to not being able to make a proper selection of patients. Again this restriction in addition to very small sample size should be explained and addressed.

The following is now added to the manuscript.

“Patient recruitment in this prospective trial was slow and despite recruiting from other centres a sample of only five patients was possible.”

- Restriction of the retrospective analysis also applies in the treatment onset, as there were indications that some patients may receive the treatment (carbogen) in different time frame (onset) than other. This adds further heterogeneity in the collected data.

Agreed, we acknowledge this as a one of the limitations of this study. This was a prospective trial with a novel drug which hasn’t been used in this circumstance so we presented results in a cautious manner.

- Lacking of control arm (i.e. patients not receiving any treatment) in this analysis make the data interpretation is difficult. Even though the nature of the data is longitudinal/time series in which some parts in each patient exposed to treatment and the rest not, which implies that patient can become their own control for different phases they involved during the study, but in the event of inconsistent results as currently observed, the existence of non-exposed patients might have helped the interpretation.

We appreciate the concerns in the interpreting the data and therefore we present the results as in an exploratory fashion. We used each patient’s non-exposed time frame as control signal. We acknowledge the reviewer’s suggestion of using non-exposed patients as controls, however, the outcome of current analysis states that except one patient, remaining cohort does not show any effect on EEG.

- The time series analysis may have quite large data on EEG collected longitudinally, yet the experimental unit of this study is patient. With this restriction, it is difficult if possible at all to make any conclusion from this analysis.

We acknowledge with the reviewer’s comment. We did perform the analysis on individual EEG channels across three phases (before, during and after phases of carbogen inhalation) and can be found in supplementary materials. The results are not drastically different from the patient level results in terms of inconsistency.

We do think it is reasonable to conclude that we found no evidence to support the hypothesis that 5% carbogen administration is associated with large and consistent alterations to commonly used quantitative EEG metrics in this patient cohort.

- Page 8: ‘Because final confirmation of eligibility required confirmation of NCSE on EEG, written “consent in principle” to participate in the study was obtained with final verbal consent to proceed once NCSE was confirmed electrographically’. How many patients were screened out and declared ineligible?

There was one child in whom NCSE was suspected (on basis of known seizure disorder and parental report of reduced alertness and interaction) but who in fact turned out not to be in NCSE once the EEG was in process and was therefore subsequently excluded.

Reviewer #2:

Manuscript number: PONE-D-19-31394

Reviewer’s Comments:

The manuscript presents a quantitative analysis of EEG recordings of carbogen inhalation during NCSE. The study described in this manuscript is interesting but the following points need to be addressed:

We thank the reviewer for their review and comments which we address below.

1) quantitative characterization should be performed in relation to outcome

In terms of clinical outcome all patients did not respond favourably (i.e. seizure persistence despite carbogen administration). In terms of quantitative EEG changes, which was our variable of interest has shown large effect on patient 5’s EEG (suppression of bandpower in lower frequency bands) but has no effect of rest of the cohort’s EEG.

2) Ethics approval for the retrospective study should be obtained

We have now included the ethical approval reference in the text (Ref: 1804/2020).

3) inclusion and exclusion criteria are missed

The following is now added to the manuscript.

“Inclusion criteria included (i) confirmed NCSE, with EEG manifestation, and (ii) reduced awareness or function confirmed by a parent or carer. Patients requiring other urgent treatment, or patients with capillary pCO2>8kPa were excluded.”

4) EEG procedures should be added

We have included EEG acquisition information including sampling rate and electrode numbers in Table 1.

5) Statistical analysis: please specify which tests were applied for comparisons and the statistical software used

Two statistical tests were applied for the comparisons: Permutation test (10000 permutations; mean) and Cohen’s d. Detailed information can be found in Statistical Analysis section.

MATLAB was used for the above-mentioned statistical tests. This is now added to the Statistical Analysis section.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response To reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Andrea Romigi

30 Jul 2020

PONE-D-19-31394R1

Carbogen inhalation during Non-Convulsive Status Epilepticus: A quantitative analysis of EEG recordings

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ramaraju,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Please provide replies for these further comments, in particular provide the sample size calculation and discuss the lack of the control arm.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 13 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Andrea Romigi, M.D., Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the reply. Below please find some further comments in a couple of points:

- Lacking of control arm (i.e. patients not receiving any treatment) in this analysis make the data interpretation is difficult. Even though the nature of the data is longitudinal/time series in which some parts in each patient exposed to treatment and the rest not, which implies that patient can become their own control for different phases they involved during the study, but in the event of inconsistent results as currently observed, the existence of non-exposed patients might have helped the interpretation.

A: We appreciate the concerns in the interpreting the data and therefore we present the results as in an exploratory fashion. We used each patient’s non-exposed time frame as control signal. We acknowledge the reviewer’s suggestion of using non-exposed patients as controls, however, the outcome of current analysis states that except one patient, remaining cohort does not show any effect on EEG.

Re: The statement that the study is exploratory in nature is an important one and should be clearly mentioned in the manuscript.

- The time series analysis may have quite large data on EEG collected longitudinally, yet the experimental unit of this study is patient. With this restriction, it is difficult if possible at all to make any conclusion from this analysis.

A: We acknowledge with the reviewer’s comment. We did perform the analysis on individual EEG channels across three phases (before, during and after phases of carbogen inhalation) and can be found in supplementary materials. The results are not drastically different from the patient level results in terms of inconsistency.

We do think it is reasonable to conclude that we found no evidence to support the hypothesis that 5% carbogen administration is associated with large and consistent alterations to commonly used quantitative EEG metrics in this patient cohort.

Re: Hypothesis did not specify how large the changes/alterations were sought. With this non-specific hypothesis, the conclusion was also blurry and not specific. Therefore, the above stated conclusion is not fully supported. In your above conclusion, how do you define ‘large and consistent alterations’? This is particularly a concern since the sample size of the study was only 5 patients.

Reviewer #2: Please clearly indicate in the methods section the study design and that data are available from the study of Forsyth and collaborators (2016) with a brief description

Please add a brief description of the sample size calculation

Please add and discuss in the discussion the lack of the control arm

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Feb 3;16(2):e0240507. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240507.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


18 Sep 2020

Re: The statement that the study is exploratory in nature is an important one and should be clearly mentioned in the manuscript

Authors: We agree with the reviewer’s suggestion. We now added “explored” in the last paragraph of introduction section (In this exploratory study we investigated the effect of carbogen….)

We have also updated the title to:

Carbogen inhalation during Non-Convulsive Status Epilepticus: A quantitative exploratory analysis of EEG recordings

Re: Hypothesis did not specify how large the changes/alterations were sought. With this non-specific hypothesis, the conclusion was also blurry and not specific. Therefore, the above stated conclusion is not fully supported. In your above conclusion, how do you define ‘large and consistent alterations’? This is particularly a concern since the sample size of the study was only 5 patients.

Authors: We have now been more precise in our hypothesis in the last paragraph of the introduction.

“In this exploratory study we investigated the effect of carbogen on band power and functional connectivity across five frequency sub-bands (delta, theta, alpha, beta and gamma). We hypothesised medium to large (cohen’s d >0.5) quantitative EEG changes during- and after-carbogen administration.”

Reviewer #2: Please clearly indicate in the methods section the study design and that data are available from the study of Forsyth and collaborators (2016) with a brief description

Authors: As reviewer suggested we now added the following sentence at the beginning of the Methods section. “The study design and the data are available from Forsyth et al (2016) as this is the follow up study”.

Please add a brief description of the sample size calculation

Authors: The following paragraph is added in Patient information and recordings of Methods section

“Patient recruitment in the prospective trail was very slow despite opening the recruitment from additional centres. The recruitment was closed by Trial steering committee 30 months after recruiting the first child. This is done on the basis that substantial increases in recruitment rates were unrealistic. Forsyth et al (2016) recruited six subjects, however, quality EEG recordings are available only for five of them”.

Please add and discuss in the discussion the lack of the control arm

We have now included this in the limitations paragraph of discussion:

“…without a control arm of non-delivery of carbogen.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response To Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Andrea Romigi

29 Sep 2020

Carbogen inhalation during Non-Convulsive Status Epilepticus: A quantitative exploratory analysis of EEG recordings

PONE-D-19-31394R2

Dear Dr. Ramaraju,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Andrea Romigi, M.D., Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Andrea Romigi

1 Dec 2020

PONE-D-19-31394R2

Carbogen inhalation during Non-Convulsive Status Epilepticus: A quantitative exploratory analysis of EEG recordings

Dear Dr. Ramaraju:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Andrea Romigi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig

    (A)-(E) Non-smoothed band power time series in broadband across three different states for five patients.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Fig. Non-smoothed correlation coefficient in broadband across three different states for five patients.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Fig. Non-smoothed path length time series in broadband across three different states for five patients.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Fig. Non-smoothed clustering coefficient time series in broadband across three different states for five patients.

    (DOCX)

    S5 Fig. Percentage change in band power.

    The normalised percentage change in band power across different frequencies between A) “Before-During” state and B) “Before-After” state.

    (DOCX)

    S6 Fig. Band power time series.

    (A)-(E) Sub-band normalised band power time series for Patient 1-Patient 5. (F)-(H) Broandband average time series for Patient 1, Patient 2 and Patient 4.

    (DOCX)

    S7 Fig. Correlation coefficient time series.

    (A)-(E) Sub-band normalised correlation coefficient time series for Patient 1-Patient 5. (F)-(H) Broandband average time series for Patient 1, Patient 2 and Patient 4.

    (DOCX)

    S8 Fig. Path length time series.

    (A)-(E) Sub-band path length time series for Patient 1-Patient 5. (F)-(H) Broandband path length time series for Patient 1, Patient 2 and Patient 4.

    (DOCX)

    S9 Fig. Clustering coefficient time series.

    (A)-(E) Sub-band normalised clustering coefficient time series for Patient 1-Patient 5. (F)-(H) Broandband average time series for Patient 1, Patient 2 and Patient 4.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Table. Patient 1 Effect size (Effect size d-values) for all the channels across all the frequency bands for before-during and before-after state.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Patient 1 Permutation test p-values (FDR corrected) for all the channels across all frequency sub-bands in before-during and before-after state.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Patient 2 Effect size (Effect size d-values) for all the channels across all the frequency bands for before-during and before-after state.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Table. Patient 2 Permutation test p-values (FDR corrected) for all the channels across all frequency sub-bands in before-during and before-after state.

    (DOCX)

    S5 Table. Patient 3 Effect size (Effect size d-values) for all the channels across all the frequency bands for before-during and before-after state.

    (DOCX)

    S6 Table. Patient 3 Permutation test p-values (FDR corrected) for all the channels across all frequency sub-bands in before-during and before-after state.

    (DOCX)

    S7 Table. Patient 4 Effect size (Cohen’s d–values) for all the channels across all the frequency bands for before-during and before-after state.

    (DOCX)

    S8 Table. Patient 4 Permutation test p-values (FDR corrected) for all the channels across all frequency sub-bands in before-during and before-after state.

    (DOCX)

    S9 Table. Patient 5 Effect size (Cohen’s d–values) for all the channels across all the frequency bands for before-during and before-after state.

    (DOCX)

    S10 Table. Patient 5 Permutation test p-values (FDR corrected) for all the channels across all frequency sub-bands in before-during and before-after state.

    (DOCX)

    S11 Table. Effect size (Cohen’s d–values) for broadband power time series, functional connectivity time series, path length time series, and clustering coefficient time series.

    (DOCX)

    S12 Table. Permutation test p-values for broadband band power time series, functional connectivity time series, path length time series, and clustering coefficient time series.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response To reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response To Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data and code is available via Figshare: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13239719.v2.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES