Giada Giovannini1, Giulia Monti1, Manuela Tondelli2, Andrea Marudi3, Franco Valzania4, Markus Leitinger5, Eugen Trinka6, Stefano Meletti7. 1. Department of Biomedical, Metabolic, and Neural Science, Center for Neuroscience and Neurotechnology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; Unit of Neurology, OCSAE Hospital, AOU Modena, Italy. 2. Department of Biomedical, Metabolic, and Neural Science, Center for Neuroscience and Neurotechnology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy. 3. Intensive Care Unit, OCSAE Hospital, AOU Modena, Italy. 4. Unit of Neurology, OCSAE Hospital, AOU Modena, Italy. 5. Department of Neurology, Christian Doppler Klinik, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria; Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Salzburg, Austria. 6. Department of Neurology, Christian Doppler Klinik, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria; Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Salzburg, Austria; Public Health, Health Services Research and HTA, University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall i.T., Austria. 7. Department of Biomedical, Metabolic, and Neural Science, Center for Neuroscience and Neurotechnology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; Unit of Neurology, OCSAE Hospital, AOU Modena, Italy. Electronic address: stefano.meletti@unimore.it.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Status epilepticus (SE) is a neurological emergency, characterized by high short-term morbidity and mortality. We evaluated and compared two scores that have been developed to evaluate status epilepticus prognosis: STESS (Status Epilepticus Severity Score) and EMSE (Epidemiology based Mortality score in Status Epilepticus). METHODS: A prospective observational study was performed on consecutive patients with SE admitted between September 2013 and August 2015. Demographics, clinical variables, STESS-3 and -4, and EMSE-64 scores were calculated for each patient at baseline. SE drug response, 30-day mortality and morbidity were the outcomes measure. RESULTS: 162 episodes of SE were observed: 69% had a STESS ≥3; 34% had a STESS ≥4; 51% patients had an EMSE ≥64. The 30-days mortality was 31.5%: EMSE-64 showed greater negative predictive value (NPV) (97.5%), positive predictive value (PPV) (59.8%) and accuracy in the prediction of death than STESS-3 and STESS-4 (p<0.001). At 30 days, the clinical condition had deteriorated in 59% of the cases: EMSE-64 showed greater NPV (71.3%), PPV (87.8%) and accuracy than STESS-3 and STESS-4 (p<0.001) in the prediction of this outcome. In 23% of all cases, status epilepticus proved refractory to non-anaesthetic treatment. All three scales showed a high NPV (EMSE-64: 87.3%; STESS-4: 89.4%; STESS-3: 87.5%) but a low PPV (EMSE-64: 40.9%; STESS-4: 52.9%; STESS-3: 32%) for the prediction of refractoriness to first and second line drugs. This means that accuracy for the prediction of refractoriness was equally poor for all scales. CONCLUSIONS: EMSE-64 appears superior to STESS-3 and STESS-4 in the prediction of 30-days mortality and morbidity. All scales showed poor accuracy in the prediction of response to first and second line antiepileptic drugs. At present, there are no reliable scores capable of predicting treatment responsiveness.
PURPOSE:Status epilepticus (SE) is a neurological emergency, characterized by high short-term morbidity and mortality. We evaluated and compared two scores that have been developed to evaluate status epilepticus prognosis: STESS (Status Epilepticus Severity Score) and EMSE (Epidemiology based Mortality score in Status Epilepticus). METHODS: A prospective observational study was performed on consecutive patients with SE admitted between September 2013 and August 2015. Demographics, clinical variables, STESS-3 and -4, and EMSE-64 scores were calculated for each patient at baseline. SE drug response, 30-day mortality and morbidity were the outcomes measure. RESULTS: 162 episodes of SE were observed: 69% had a STESS ≥3; 34% had a STESS ≥4; 51% patients had an EMSE ≥64. The 30-days mortality was 31.5%: EMSE-64 showed greater negative predictive value (NPV) (97.5%), positive predictive value (PPV) (59.8%) and accuracy in the prediction of death than STESS-3 and STESS-4 (p<0.001). At 30 days, the clinical condition had deteriorated in 59% of the cases: EMSE-64 showed greater NPV (71.3%), PPV (87.8%) and accuracy than STESS-3 and STESS-4 (p<0.001) in the prediction of this outcome. In 23% of all cases, status epilepticus proved refractory to non-anaesthetic treatment. All three scales showed a high NPV (EMSE-64: 87.3%; STESS-4: 89.4%; STESS-3: 87.5%) but a low PPV (EMSE-64: 40.9%; STESS-4: 52.9%; STESS-3: 32%) for the prediction of refractoriness to first and second line drugs. This means that accuracy for the prediction of refractoriness was equally poor for all scales. CONCLUSIONS: EMSE-64 appears superior to STESS-3 and STESS-4 in the prediction of 30-days mortality and morbidity. All scales showed poor accuracy in the prediction of response to first and second line antiepileptic drugs. At present, there are no reliable scores capable of predicting treatment responsiveness.
Authors: Wolfgang G Muhlhofer; Stephen Layfield; Daniel Lowenstein; Chee Paul Lin; Robert D Johnson; Shalini Saini; Jerzy P Szaflarski Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2019-04-07 Impact factor: 5.864