Jacques Theitler1,2, Daniella Dassa1, Revital Gandelman-Marton3,4. 1. Electroencephalography Laboratory, Neurology Department, Assaf Harofeh Medical Center, Zerifin, 70300, Israel. 2. Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 3. Electroencephalography Laboratory, Neurology Department, Assaf Harofeh Medical Center, Zerifin, 70300, Israel. revitalgm@hotmail.com. 4. Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. revitalgm@hotmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inpatient video-EEG monitoring (VEM) can contribute to the diagnosis and treatment in many of the monitored patients. Most admissions to VEM are elective and are scheduled ahead before the monitoring session. PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the yield of non-elective VEM sessions. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the VEM recordings and medical records of all the patients admitted to our one-bed VEM unit from June 2007 to June 2015. A VEM session was diagnostic when a seizure, an event or previously unreported interictal epileptiform discharges were recorded. RESULTS: The study group included 304 adults aged 18-92 years (mean 40.4 ± 17.4 years), 181 (59%) women. The diagnostic yield of non-elective and elective VEM session was similar (66 and 69%, respectively). In non-elective VEM, fewer patients had known epilepsy (p = 0.0001), session duration was shorter (p = 0.0001), and seizures and interictal epileptiform discharges were recorded less frequently compared to elective VEM (p = 0.005 and p = 0.0001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Non-elective VEM can provide useful information in patients admitted to the neurology department with recent neurological or behavioral events. A timely and correct diagnosis in these patients can potentially reduce unnecessary use of antiepileptic drugs in patients with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures and the morbidity and mortality associated with undiagnosed seizures.
BACKGROUND: Inpatient video-EEG monitoring (VEM) can contribute to the diagnosis and treatment in many of the monitored patients. Most admissions to VEM are elective and are scheduled ahead before the monitoring session. PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the yield of non-elective VEM sessions. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the VEM recordings and medical records of all the patients admitted to our one-bed VEM unit from June 2007 to June 2015. A VEM session was diagnostic when a seizure, an event or previously unreported interictal epileptiform discharges were recorded. RESULTS: The study group included 304 adults aged 18-92 years (mean 40.4 ± 17.4 years), 181 (59%) women. The diagnostic yield of non-elective and elective VEM session was similar (66 and 69%, respectively). In non-elective VEM, fewer patients had known epilepsy (p = 0.0001), session duration was shorter (p = 0.0001), and seizures and interictal epileptiform discharges were recorded less frequently compared to elective VEM (p = 0.005 and p = 0.0001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Non-elective VEM can provide useful information in patients admitted to the neurology department with recent neurological or behavioral events. A timely and correct diagnosis in these patients can potentially reduce unnecessary use of antiepileptic drugs in patients with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures and the morbidity and mortality associated with undiagnosed seizures.
Authors: Robert S Fisher; Carlos Acevedo; Alexis Arzimanoglou; Alicia Bogacz; J Helen Cross; Christian E Elger; Jerome Engel; Lars Forsgren; Jacqueline A French; Mike Glynn; Dale C Hesdorffer; B I Lee; Gary W Mathern; Solomon L Moshé; Emilio Perucca; Ingrid E Scheffer; Torbjörn Tomson; Masako Watanabe; Samuel Wiebe Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2014-04-14 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Andrew C F Hui; Patrick Kwan; T W Leung; Y Soo; Vincent C T Mok; Lawrence K S Wong Journal: Hong Kong Med J Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 2.227
Authors: M Yogarajah; H W R Powell; D Heaney; S J M Smith; J S Duncan; S M Sisodiya Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2008-10-17 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Sonia Quintas; Juan Camilo Ródriguez-Carrillo; Rafael Toledano; María de Toledo; Francisco José Navacerrada Barrero; M Álvaro Berbís; Ana Beatriz Gago-Veiga Journal: Neurol Sci Date: 2017-12-18 Impact factor: 3.307