Emma Goodwin1, Rosalind H Kandler2, James J P Alix3. 1. Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Glossop Road, Sheffield S10 2JF, United Kingdom. Electronic address: Emma.J.Goodwin@sth.nhs.uk. 2. Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Glossop Road, Sheffield S10 2JF, United Kingdom. Electronic address: Rosalind.H.Kandler@sth.nhs.uk. 3. Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Glossop Road, Sheffield S10 2JF, United Kingdom. Electronic address: j.alix@sheffield.ac.uk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The demand for long term EEG monitoring is increasing with the emphasis on recording patients' attacks. Outpatient ambulatory EEG is relatively inexpensive and widely available. The main disadvantage of the technique is the lack of video which can make interpretation of an ictus difficult. We investigated whether patients, if offered home video equipment, would take it, if this resulted in simultaneous EEG-video capture of an ictus and if interpretation of the recording was facilitated by the video. METHOD: All ambulatory EEG patients, adults and children, were offered a camcorder to take home during a 17-month study period. RESULTS: 130 patients/carers were offered a camcorder (93 adults, 37 children), 45 patients (35%) accepted; the main reason for not accepting was that attacks were considered too brief to record. An ictal event occurred in 34 patients (76%) with a camcorder; in 17 (50%) of these an attack was captured successfully on video. The main reasons for failure to capture events were that attacks were too brief, or that the camcorder was not operated successfully. Attacks were captured with greater success in children (14/23, 61%) than adults (3/11, 27%). Of the 17 video recordings, 14 (82%) were helpful in aiding interpretation of the ambulatory EEG. CONCLUSION: In our study, home video facilities aided interpretation of ambulatory EEG recordings in approximately one third of patients. Technological advances and familiarity with portable recording devices will improve this figure and patients and their carers should be encouraged to use such facilities when available.
PURPOSE: The demand for long term EEG monitoring is increasing with the emphasis on recording patients' attacks. Outpatient ambulatory EEG is relatively inexpensive and widely available. The main disadvantage of the technique is the lack of video which can make interpretation of an ictus difficult. We investigated whether patients, if offered home video equipment, would take it, if this resulted in simultaneous EEG-video capture of an ictus and if interpretation of the recording was facilitated by the video. METHOD: All ambulatory EEG patients, adults and children, were offered a camcorder to take home during a 17-month study period. RESULTS: 130 patients/carers were offered a camcorder (93 adults, 37 children), 45 patients (35%) accepted; the main reason for not accepting was that attacks were considered too brief to record. An ictal event occurred in 34 patients (76%) with a camcorder; in 17 (50%) of these an attack was captured successfully on video. The main reasons for failure to capture events were that attacks were too brief, or that the camcorder was not operated successfully. Attacks were captured with greater success in children (14/23, 61%) than adults (3/11, 27%). Of the 17 video recordings, 14 (82%) were helpful in aiding interpretation of the ambulatory EEG. CONCLUSION: In our study, home video facilities aided interpretation of ambulatory EEG recordings in approximately one third of patients. Technological advances and familiarity with portable recording devices will improve this figure and patients and their carers should be encouraged to use such facilities when available.
Authors: Jay Pathmanathan; Troels W Kjaer; Andrew J Cole; Norman Delanty; Rainer Surges; Jonas Duun-Henriksen Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: James W Wheless; Daniel Friedman; Gregory L Krauss; Vikram R Rao; Michael R Sperling; Enrique Carrazana; Adrian L Rabinowicz Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2022-09 Impact factor: 6.740