Daniel Friedman1, Elizabeth J Donner2, Derek Stephens3, Cyndi Wright4, Orrin Devinsky5. 1. Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, Department of Neurology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: Daniel.Friedman@nyumc.org. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 3. Department of Biostatistics, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Stormlabs Consulting, Boulder, CO, USA. 5. Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, Department of Neurology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is a common cause of mortality in patients with the disease, but it is unknown how neurologists disclose this risk when counseling patients. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at examining SUDEP discussion practices of neurologists in the U.S. and Canada. DESIGN: An electronic, web-based survey was sent to 17,558 neurologists in the U.S. and Canada. Survey questions included frequency of SUDEP discussion, reasons for discussing/not discussing SUDEP, timing of SUDEP discussions, and perceived patient reactions. We examined factors that influence the frequency of SUDEP discussion and perceived patient response using multivariate logistic regression. PARTICIPANTS: The participants of this study were neurologists who completed postgraduate training and devoted >5% of their time to patient care. RESULTS: There was a response rate of 9.3%; 1200 respondents met eligibility criteria and completed surveys. Only 6.8% of the respondents discussed SUDEP with nearly all (>90% of the time) of their patients with epilepsy/caregivers, while 11.6% never discussed it. Factors that independently predicted whether SUDEP was discussed nearly all of the time were the following: number of patients with epilepsy seen annually (OR=2.01, 95% CI=1.20-3.37, p<0.01) and if the respondent had a SUDEP case in the past 24 months (OR=2.27, 95% CI=1.37-3.66, p<0.01). A majority of respondents (59.5%) reported that negative reactions were the most common response to a discussion of SUDEP. Having additional epilepsy/neurophysiology training was associated with an increased risk of a perceived negative response (OR=1.36, 95% CI=1.02-1.82, p=0.038), while years in practice (OR=0.85, 95% CI=0.77-0.95, p<0.005) and seeing both adults and children were associated with a decreased likelihood of negative response (OR=0.15, 95% CI=0.032-0.74, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: U.S. and Canadian neurologists rarely discuss SUDEP with all patients with epilepsy/caregivers though discussions are more likely among neurologists who frequently see patients with epilepsy or had a recent SUDEP in their practice. Perceived negative reactions to SUDEP discussions are common but not universal; more experienced neurologists may be less likely to encounter negative reactions, suggesting that there may be ways to frame the discussion that minimizes patient/caregiver distress.
IMPORTANCE: Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is a common cause of mortality in patients with the disease, but it is unknown how neurologists disclose this risk when counseling patients. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at examining SUDEP discussion practices of neurologists in the U.S. and Canada. DESIGN: An electronic, web-based survey was sent to 17,558 neurologists in the U.S. and Canada. Survey questions included frequency of SUDEP discussion, reasons for discussing/not discussing SUDEP, timing of SUDEP discussions, and perceived patient reactions. We examined factors that influence the frequency of SUDEP discussion and perceived patient response using multivariate logistic regression. PARTICIPANTS: The participants of this study were neurologists who completed postgraduate training and devoted >5% of their time to patient care. RESULTS: There was a response rate of 9.3%; 1200 respondents met eligibility criteria and completed surveys. Only 6.8% of the respondents discussed SUDEP with nearly all (>90% of the time) of their patients with epilepsy/caregivers, while 11.6% never discussed it. Factors that independently predicted whether SUDEP was discussed nearly all of the time were the following: number of patients with epilepsy seen annually (OR=2.01, 95% CI=1.20-3.37, p<0.01) and if the respondent had a SUDEP case in the past 24 months (OR=2.27, 95% CI=1.37-3.66, p<0.01). A majority of respondents (59.5%) reported that negative reactions were the most common response to a discussion of SUDEP. Having additional epilepsy/neurophysiology training was associated with an increased risk of a perceived negative response (OR=1.36, 95% CI=1.02-1.82, p=0.038), while years in practice (OR=0.85, 95% CI=0.77-0.95, p<0.005) and seeing both adults and children were associated with a decreased likelihood of negative response (OR=0.15, 95% CI=0.032-0.74, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: U.S. and Canadian neurologists rarely discuss SUDEP with all patients with epilepsy/caregivers though discussions are more likely among neurologists who frequently see patients with epilepsy or had a recent SUDEP in their practice. Perceived negative reactions to SUDEP discussions are common but not universal; more experienced neurologists may be less likely to encounter negative reactions, suggesting that there may be ways to frame the discussion that minimizes patient/caregiver distress.
Authors: Dale C Hesdorffer; Torbjorn Tomson; Emma Benn; Josemir W Sander; Lena Nilsson; Yvonne Langan; Thaddeus S Walczak; Ettore Beghi; Martin J Brodie; Allen Hauser Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2011-01-28 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Elson L So; Jacquelyn Bainbridge; Jeffrey R Buchhalter; Jeanne Donalty; Elizabeth J Donner; Alexandra Finucane; Nina M Graves; Lawrence J Hirsch; Georgia D Montouris; Nancy R Temkin; Samuel Wiebe; Tess L Sierzant Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2008-11-24 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Neti A Gayatri; Matthew C H J Morrall; Vivek Jain; Pawan Kashyape; Karen Pysden; Colin Ferrie Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2010-01-07 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Esma Cihan; Dale C Hesdorffer; Michael Brandsoy; Ling Li; David R Fowler; Jason K Graham; Michael Karlovich; Elizabeth J Donner; Orrin Devinsky; Daniel Friedman Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Randall W Grout; Jeffrey Buchhalter; Anup D Patel; Amy Brin; Ann A Clark; Mary Holmay; Tyler J Story; Stephen M Downs Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 2.342