INTRODUCTION: Ambulatory electroencephalogram (EEG) monitoring allows for long-term, mobile electroencephalographic recordings of patients. This study aims to describe and analyze the results obtained with ambulatory EEG in our clinical practice. METHODS: We have analyzed the results of 264 ambulatory EEG records, grouped according to the reason for the request: a) group 1: diagnostic evaluation of episodes of epileptic nature; b) group 2: diagnostic evaluation of paroxysmal episodes, and c) group 3: evaluation of the risk of relapse during anti-seizure treatment withdrawal in certain epileptic patients. RESULTS: a) Group 1 (n=137): normal results were found in 54 records (39.4%). There was generalized epileptic activity in 20 (14.6%) of them (5 with ictal activity) and focal epileptic activity was detected in 57 cases (42%) (8 with ictal activity). No EEG diagnosis could be reached in 6 (4%) recordings due to the presence of artefacts; b) group 2 (n=99): in 47 records (47.5 %), there were no episodes and the Holter-EEG was normal. There was a clinically documented episode without anomalies during Holter-EEG registration in 14 cases (14.2%). In 29 records (29.3%), focal epileptic activity was recorded (ictal 4) and generalized epileptic activity (ictal in 1) was recorded in 4 patients (4%). No EEG diagnosis could be reached in 5 cases (5%), and c) group 3 (n=28): the study was normal in 15 cases (53.6%) and showed focal interictal epileptic activity in 8 (28.6 %) and generalized interictal epileptic activity in 5 of them (17.8%). CONCLUSION: We believe that the ambulatory EEG recordings in correctly selected cases can provide important additional information regarding global assessment of patients with epilepsy.
INTRODUCTION: Ambulatory electroencephalogram (EEG) monitoring allows for long-term, mobile electroencephalographic recordings of patients. This study aims to describe and analyze the results obtained with ambulatory EEG in our clinical practice. METHODS: We have analyzed the results of 264 ambulatory EEG records, grouped according to the reason for the request: a) group 1: diagnostic evaluation of episodes of epileptic nature; b) group 2: diagnostic evaluation of paroxysmal episodes, and c) group 3: evaluation of the risk of relapse during anti-seizure treatment withdrawal in certain epilepticpatients. RESULTS: a) Group 1 (n=137): normal results were found in 54 records (39.4%). There was generalized epileptic activity in 20 (14.6%) of them (5 with ictal activity) and focal epileptic activity was detected in 57 cases (42%) (8 with ictal activity). No EEG diagnosis could be reached in 6 (4%) recordings due to the presence of artefacts; b) group 2 (n=99): in 47 records (47.5 %), there were no episodes and the Holter-EEG was normal. There was a clinically documented episode without anomalies during Holter-EEG registration in 14 cases (14.2%). In 29 records (29.3%), focal epileptic activity was recorded (ictal 4) and generalized epileptic activity (ictal in 1) was recorded in 4 patients (4%). No EEG diagnosis could be reached in 5 cases (5%), and c) group 3 (n=28): the study was normal in 15 cases (53.6%) and showed focal interictal epileptic activity in 8 (28.6 %) and generalized interictal epileptic activity in 5 of them (17.8%). CONCLUSION: We believe that the ambulatory EEG recordings in correctly selected cases can provide important additional information regarding global assessment of patients with epilepsy.