Video quality using outpatient smartphone videos in epilepsy: Results from the OSmartViE study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of smartphone videos (SVs) of neurologic events in adult epilepsy outpatients. The use of home video recording in patients with neurological disease states is increasing. Experts interpretation of outpatient smartphone videos of seizures and neurological events has demonstrated similar diagnostic accuracy to inpatient video-electroencephalography (EEG) monitoring. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter cohort study was conducted to evaluate SV quality in patients with paroxysmal neurologic events from August 15, 2015 through August 31, 2018. Epileptic seizures (ESs), psychogenic nonepileptic attacks (PNEAs), and physiologic nonepileptic events (PhysNEEs) were confirmed by video-EEG monitoring. Experts and senior neurology residents blindly viewed cloud-based SVs without clinical information. Quality ratings with regard to technical and operator-driven metrics were provided in responses to a survey. RESULTS: Forty-four patients (31 women, age 45.1 years [r = 20-82]) were included and 530 SVs were viewed by a mean of seven experts and six residents; one video per patient was reviewed for a mean of 133.8 s (r = 9-543). In all, 30 patients had PNEAs, 11 had ESs, and three had PhysNEEs. Quality was suitable in 70.8% of SVs (375/530 total views), with 36/44 (81.8%) patient SVs rated as adequate by the majority of reviewers. Accuracy improved with the presence of convulsive features from 72.4% to 98.2% in ESs and from 71.1% to 95.7% in PNEAs. An accurate diagnosis was given by all reviewers (100%) in 11/44 SVs (all PNEAs). Audio was rated as good by 86.2% of reviewers for these SVs compared with 75.4% for the remaining SVs (p = 0.01). Lighting was better in SVs associated with high accuracy (p = 0.06), but clarity was not (p = 0.59). Poor video quality yielded unknown diagnoses in 24.2% of the SVs reviewed. Features hindering diagnosis were limited interactivity, restricted field of view and short video duration. CONCLUSIONS: Smartphone video quality is adequate for clinical interpretation in the majority of patients with paroxysmal neurologic events. Quality can be optimized by encouraging interactivity with the patient, adequate duration of the SV, and enlarged field of view during videography. Quality limitations were primarily operational though accuracy remained for SV review of ESs and PNEAs.

Resetting of brain dynamics: epileptic versus psychogenic nonepileptic seizures.

We investigated the possibility of differential diagnosis of patients with epileptic seizures (ES) and patients with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) through an advanced analysis of the dynamics of the patients' scalp EEGs. The underlying principle was the presence of resetting of brain's preictal spatiotemporal entrainment following onset of ES and the absence of resetting following PNES. Long-term (days) scalp EEGs recorded from five patients with ES and six patients with PNES were analyzed. It was found that: (1) Preictal entrainment of brain sites was reset at ES (P<0.05) in four of the five patients with ES, and not reset (P=0.28) in the fifth patient. (2) Resetting did not occur (p>0.1) in any of the six patients with PNES. These preliminary results in patients with ES are in agreement with our previous findings from intracranial EEG recordings on resetting of brain dynamics by ES and are expected to constitute the basis for the development of a reliable and supporting tool in the differential diagnosis between ES and PNES. Finally, we believe that these results shed light on the electrophysiology of PNES by showing that occurrence of PNES does not assist patients in overcoming a pathological entrainment of brain dynamics. This article is part of a Supplemental Special Issue entitled The Future of Automated Seizure Detection and Prediction.

Assessment of the Predictive Value of Outpatient Smartphone Videos for Diagnosis of Epileptic Seizures.

Importance: Misdiagnosis of epilepsy is common. Video electroencephalogram provides a definitive diagnosis but is impractical for many patients referred for evaluation of epilepsy. Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of outpatient smartphone videos in epilepsy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, masked, diagnostic accuracy study (the OSmartViE study) took place between August 31, 2015, and August 31, 2018, at 8 academic epilepsy centers in the United States and included a convenience sample of 44 nonconsecutive outpatients who volunteered a smartphone video during evaluation and subsequently underwent video electroencephalogram monitoring. Three epileptologists uploaded videos for physicians from the 8 epilepsy centers to review. Main Outcomes and Measures: Measures of performance (accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value) for smartphone video-based diagnosis by experts and trainees (the index test) were compared with those for history and physical examination and video electroencephalogram monitoring (the reference standard). Results: Forty-four eligible epilepsy clinic outpatients (31 women [70.5%]; mean [range] age, 45.1 [20-82] years) submitted smartphone videos (530 total physician reviews). Final video electroencephalogram diagnoses included 11 epileptic seizures, 30 psychogenic nonepileptic attacks, and 3 physiologic nonepileptic events. Expert interpretation of a smartphone video was accurate in predicting a video electroencephalogram monitoring diagnosis of epileptic seizures 89.1% (95% CI, 84.2%-92.9%) of the time, with a specificity of 93.3% (95% CI, 88.3%-96.6%). Resident responses were less accurate for all metrics involving epileptic seizures and psychogenic nonepileptic attacks, despite greater confidence. Motor signs during events increased accuracy. One-fourth of the smartphone videos were correctly diagnosed by 100% of the reviewing physicians, composed solely of psychogenic attacks. When histories and physical examination results were combined with smartphone videos, correct diagnoses rose from 78.6% to 95.2%. The odds of receiving a correct diagnosis were 5.45 times greater using smartphone video alongside patient history and physical examination results than with history and physical examination alone (95% CI, 1.01-54.3; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: Outpatient smartphone video review by experts has predictive and additive value for diagnosing epileptic seizures. Smartphone videos may reliably aid psychogenic nonepileptic attacks diagnosis for some people.