Literature DB >> 25010322

Critical evaluation of four different seizure detection systems tested on one patient with focal and generalized tonic and clonic seizures.

Anouk Van de Vel1, Kristien Verhaert2, Berten Ceulemans3.   

Abstract

For long-term home monitoring of epileptic seizures, the measurement of extracerebral body signals such as abnormal movement is often easier and less obtrusive than monitoring intracerebral brain waves with electroencephalography (EEG). Non-EEG devices are commercially available but with little scientifically valid information and no consensus on which system works for which seizure type or patient. We evaluated four systems based on efficiency, comfort, and user-friendliness and compared them in one patient suffering from focal epilepsy with secondary generalization. The Emfit mat, Epi-Care device, and Epi-Care Free bracelet are commercially available alarm systems, while the VARIA (Video, Accelerometry, and Radar-Induced Activity recording) device is being developed by our team and requires offline analysis for seizure detection and does so by presenting the 5% or 10% (patient-specific) most abnormal movement events, irrespective of the number of seizures per night. As we chose to mimic the home situation, we did not record EEG and compared our results to the seizures reported by experienced staff that were monitoring the patient on a semicontinuous basis. This resulted in a sensitivity (sens) of 78% and false detection rate (FDR) of 0.55 per night for Emfit, sens 40% and FDR 0.41 for Epi-Care, sens 41% and FDR 0.05 for Epi-Care Free, and sens 56% and FDR 20.33 for VARIA. Good results were obtained by some of the devices, even though, as expected, nongeneralized and nonrhythmic motor seizures (involving the head only, having a tonic phase, or manifesting mainly as sound) were often missed. The Emfit mat was chosen for our patient, also based on user-friendliness (few setup steps), comfort (contactless), and possibility to adjust patient-specific settings. When in need of a seizure detection system for a patient, a thorough individual search is still required, which suggests the need for a database or overview including results of clinical trials describing the patient and their seizure types.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Comparison; Emfit; Epi-Care; Epi-Care Free; Extracerebral signals; Non-EEG devices

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25010322     DOI: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2014.06.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Epilepsy Behav        ISSN: 1525-5050            Impact factor:   2.937


  5 in total

Review 1.  Seizure detection: do current devices work? And when can they be useful?

Authors:  Xiuhe Zhao; Samden D Lhatoo
Journal:  Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep       Date:  2018-05-23       Impact factor: 5.081

2.  Summary of the 2016 Partners Against Mortality in Epilepsy (PAME) Conference.

Authors: 
Journal:  Epilepsy Curr       Date:  2016 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 7.500

3.  Remote Assessment of Disease and Relapse in Epilepsy: Protocol for a Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Elisa Bruno; Andrea Biondi; Sebastian Böttcher; Gergely Vértes; Richard Dobson; Amos Folarin; Yatharth Ranjan; Zulqarnain Rashid; Nikolay Manyakov; Aki Rintala; Inez Myin-Germeys; Sara Simblett; Til Wykes; Amanda Stoneman; Ann Little; Sarah Thorpe; Simon Lees; Andreas Schulze-Bonhage; Mark Richardson
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2020-12-16

Review 4.  Neural stimulation systems for the control of refractory epilepsy: a review.

Authors:  Matthew D Bigelow; Abbas Z Kouzani
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2019-10-29       Impact factor: 4.262

Review 5.  Noninvasive detection of focal seizures in ambulatory patients.

Authors:  Philippe Ryvlin; Leila Cammoun; Ilona Hubbard; France Ravey; Sandor Beniczky; David Atienza
Journal:  Epilepsia       Date:  2020-06-02       Impact factor: 5.864

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.