Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy and Respiratory Defects in a Mouse Model of DEPDC5-Related Epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES: DEPDC5 is a common causative gene in familial focal epilepsy with or without malformations of cortical development. Its pathogenic variants also confer a significantly higher risk for sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP), providing opportunities to investigate the pathophysiology intersecting neurodevelopment, epilepsy, and cardiorespiratory function. There is an urgent need to gain a mechanistic understanding of DEPDC5-related epilepsy and SUDEP, identify biomarkers for patients at high risk, and develop preventive interventions. METHODS: Depdc5 was specifically deleted in excitatory or inhibitory neurons in the mouse brain to determine neuronal subtypes that drive epileptogenesis and SUDEP. Electroencephalogram (EEG), cardiac, and respiratory recordings were performed to determine cardiorespiratory phenotypes associated with SUDEP. Baseline respiratory function and the response to hypoxia challenge were also studied in these mice. RESULTS: Depdc5 deletion in excitatory neurons in cortical layer 5 and dentate gyrus caused frequent generalized tonic-clonic seizures and SUDEP in young adult mice, but Depdc5 deletion in cortical interneurons did not. EEG suppression immediately following ictal offset was observed in fatal and non-fatal seizures, but low amplitude rhythmic theta frequency activity was lost only in fatal seizures. In addition, these mice developed baseline respiratory dysfunction prior to SUDEP, during which ictal apnea occurred long before terminal cardiac asystole. INTERPRETATION: Depdc5 deletion in excitatory neurons is sufficient to cause DEPDC5-related epilepsy and SUDEP. Ictal apnea and respiratory dysregulation play critical roles in SUDEP. Our study also provides a novel mouse model to investigate the underlying mechanisms of DEPDC5-related epilepsy and SUDEP. ANN NEUROL 2023;94:812-824.

Are we there yet? A critical evaluation of sudden and unexpected death in epilepsy models.

Although animal models have helped to elaborate meaningful hypotheses about the pathophysiology of sudden and unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP), specific prevention strategies are still lacking, potentially reflecting the limitations of these models and the intrinsic difficulties of investigating SUDEP. The interpretation of preclinical data and their translation to diagnostic and therapeutic developments in patients thus require a high level of confidence in their relevance to model the human situation. Preclinical models of SUDEP are heterogeneous and include rodent and nonrodent species. A critical aspect is whether the animals have isolated seizures exclusively induced by a specific trigger, such as models where seizures are elicited by electrical stimulation, pharmacological intervention, or DBA mouse strains, or whether they suffer from epilepsy with spontaneous seizures, with or without spontaneous SUDEP, either of nongenetic epilepsy etiology or from genetically based developmental and epileptic encephalopathies. All these models have advantages and potential disadvantages, but it is important to be aware of these limitations to interpret data appropriately in a translational perspective. The majority of models with spontaneous seizures are of a genetic basis, whereas SUDEP cases with a genetic basis represent only a small proportion of the total number. In almost all models, cardiorespiratory arrest occurs during the course of the seizure, contrary to that in patients observed at the time of death, potentially raising the issue of whether we are studying models of SUDEP or models of periseizure death. However, some of these limitations are impossible to avoid and can in part be dependent on specific features of SUDEP, which may be difficult to model. Several preclinical tools are available to address certain gaps in SUDEP pathophysiology, which can be used to further validate current preclinical models.

Medication adherence, anxiety and depression, and safety of epileptic patients following receiving information about sudden unexpected deaths in epilepsy: A quasi-experimental study with before/after design.

INTRODUCTION: It is very important to provide epileptic patients with sufficient knowledge of SUDEP and empower them regarding its prevention. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the educational intervention of receiving information about SUDEP on medication adherence, anxiety and depression, and the safety of epileptic patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study was conducted on 60 epilepsy patients referred to the specialized epilepsy clinic of Imam Hossein Hospital in Tehran, Iran, from April 2022 to February 2023. Data were collected by the Morisky medication adherence scale, hospital anxiety and depression scales, and the researcher-made checklists of bathing safety, sleep safety, and patient seizure preparation before and after the intervention. The educational intervention was conducted through the video and pamphlet regarding knowledge about SUDEP. Wilcoxon and paired t-tests were used to compare the data changes following the intervention. RESULTS: Most patients were male, with an age range of 18 to 29 years old. The mean score of anxiety and depression before and after the educational intervention did not show a statistically significant difference (P = 0.928); however, the mean scores of medication adherence, bathing safety, sleep safety, and preparation for seizure after the educational intervention increased significantly (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Knowledge about SUDEP would be able to encourage epileptic patients to better adhere to medication; and make them empower regarding seizure preparation, bathing safety, and sleep safety.

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is a leading cause of death in patients with epilepsy. This review highlights the recent literature regarding epidemiology on a global scale, putative mechanisms and thoughts towards intervention and prevention. RECENT FINDINGS: Recently, numerous population-based studies have examined the incidence of SUDEP in many countries. Remarkably, incidence is quite consistent across these studies, and is commensurate with the recent estimates of about 1.2 per 1000 patient years. These studies further continue to support that incidence is similar across the ages and that comparable factors portend heightened risk for SUDEP. Fervent research in patients and animal studies continues to hone the understanding of potential mechanisms for SUDEP, especially those regarding seizure-induced respiratory dysregulation. Many of these studies and others have begun to lay out a path towards identification of improved treatment and prevention means. However, continued efforts are needed to educate medical professionals about SUDEP risk and the need to disclose this to patients. SUMMARY: SUDEP is a devastating potential outcome of epilepsy. More is continually learned about risk and mechanisms from clinical and preclinical studies. This knowledge can hopefully be leveraged into preventive measures in the near future.

A unified hypothesis of SUDEP: Seizure-induced respiratory depression induced by adenosine may lead to SUDEP but can be prevented by autoresuscitation and other restorative respiratory response mechanisms mediated by the action of serotonin on the periaqueductal gray.

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is a major cause of death in people with epilepsy (PWE). Postictal apnea leading to cardiac arrest is the most common sequence of terminal events in witnessed cases of SUDEP, and postconvulsive central apnea has been proposed as a potential biomarker of SUDEP susceptibility. Research in SUDEP animal models has led to the serotonin and adenosine hypotheses of SUDEP. These neurotransmitters influence respiration, seizures, and lethality in animal models of SUDEP, and are implicated in human SUDEP cases. Adenosine released during seizures is proposed to be an important seizure termination mechanism. However, adenosine also depresses respiration, and this effect is mediated, in part, by inhibition of neuronal activity in subcortical structures that modulate respiration, including the periaqueductal gray (PAG). Drugs that enhance the action of adenosine increase postictal death in SUDEP models. Serotonin is also released during seizures, but enhances respiration in response to an elevated carbon dioxide level, which often occurs postictally. This effect of serotonin can potentially compensate, in part, for the adenosine-mediated respiratory depression, acting to facilitate autoresuscitation and other restorative respiratory response mechanisms. A number of drugs that enhance the action of serotonin prevent postictal death in several SUDEP models and reduce postictal respiratory depression in PWE. This effect of serotonergic drugs may be mediated, in part, by actions on brainstem sites that modulate respiration, including the PAG. Enhanced activity in the PAG increases respiration in response to hypoxia and other exigent conditions and can be activated by electrical stimulation. Thus, we propose the unifying hypothesis that seizure-induced adenosine release leads to respiratory depression. This can be reversed by serotonergic action on autoresuscitation and other restorative respiratory responses acting, in part, via the PAG. Therefore, we hypothesize that serotonergic or direct activation of this brainstem site may be a useful approach for SUDEP prevention.

Stratifying sudden death risk in adults with drug-resistant focal epilepsy: The SUDEP-CARE score.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A clinical risk score for sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) in patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy could help improve prevention. METHODS: A case-control study was conducted including (i) definite or probable SUDEP cases collected by the French National Sentinel Mortality Epilepsy Network and (ii) control patients from the French national research database of epilepsy monitoring units. Patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy were eligible. Multiple logistic regressions were performed. After sensitivity analysis and internal validation, a simplified risk score was developed from the selected variables. RESULTS: Sixty-two SUDEP cases and 620 controls were included. Of 21 potential predictors explored, seven were ultimately selected, including generalized seizure frequency (>1/month vs. <1/year: adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-5.41), nocturnal or sleep-related seizures (AOR 4.49, 95% CI 2.68-7.53), current or past depression (AOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.19-3.34) or the ability to alert someone of an oncoming seizure (AOR 0.57, 95% CI 0.33-0.98). After internal validation, a clinically usable score ranging from -1 to 8 was developed, with high discrimination capabilities (area under the receiver operating curve 0.85, 95% CI 0.80-0.90). The threshold of 3 has good sensitivity (82.3%, 95% CI 72.7-91.8), whilst keeping a good specificity (82.7%, 95% CI 79.8-85.7). CONCLUSIONS: These results outline the importance of generalized and nocturnal seizures on the occurrence of SUDEP, and show a protective role in the ability to alert someone of an oncoming seizure. The SUDEP-CARE score is promising and will need external validation. Further work, including paraclinical explorations, could improve this risk score.

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy in children.

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is the leading cause of epilepsy-related mortality in children and adults living with epilepsy. The incidence of SUDEP is comparable in both children and adults; it is approximately 1.2 per 1000 person years. The pathophysiology of SUDEP is not well understood but may involve mechanisms such as cerebral shutdown, autonomic dysfunction, altered brainstem function, and cardiorespiratory demise. Risk factors for SUDEP include the presence of generalized tonic-clonic seizures, nocturnal seizures, possible genetic predisposition, and non-adherence to antiseizure medications. Pediatric-specific risk factors are not fully elucidated. Despite recommendations from consensus guidelines, many clinicians still do not follow the practice of counseling their patients about SUDEP. SUDEP prevention has been an area of important research focus and includes several strategies, such as obtaining seizure control, optimizing treatment regimens, nocturnal supervision, and seizure detection devices. This review discusses what is currently known about SUDEP risk factors and reviews current and future preventive strategies for SUDEP.

Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy: Pathogenesis, Risk Factors, and Prevention.

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is a tragic and unexpected cause of death in patients with a known diagnosis of epilepsy. It occurs in up to 6.3 to 9.3/1,000 patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. The main three risk factors associated with SUDEP are the presence of generalized tonic-clonic seizures, the presence of a seizure in the past year, and an intellectual disability. There are several mechanisms that can result in SUDEP. The most likely sequence of events appears to be a convulsive seizure, overactivation of the autonomic nervous system, cardiorespiratory dysfunction, and death. While the risk of SUDEP is relatively high in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy, studies indicate that more than 50% of patients and caregivers are unaware of the diagnosis. Counseling about the diagnosis and preventative measures at the time of diagnosis is important. There are numerous interventions that may reduce the risk of SUDEP, including conservative measures such as nocturnal surveillance with a bed partner (where applicable) and automated devices. Optimizing seizure control with antiseizure medications and surgical interventions can result in a reduced risk of SUDEP.

Advances in sudden unexpected death in epilepsy.

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is the major cause of premature death in epilepsy patients, particularly those with refractory epilepsy. Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy is thought to be related to peri-ictal cardiac dysfunction, respiratory depression, and autonomic dysfunction, albeit the exact etiology is unknown. Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy prevention remains a huge challenge. The sole presence and frequency of generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS) are the most important risk factors for SUDEP, and nocturnal monitoring may lower the risk with the use of remote listening devices. In addition, studies in animal models of SUDEP have discovered that multiple neurotransmitters, including serotonin (5-HT) and adenosine, may be involved in the pathophysiological mechanisms of SUDEP and that these neurotransmitters could be the targets of future pharmacological intervention for SUDEP. The latest research findings on the epidemiology, clinical risk factors, and probable causes of SUDEP are presented in this review.

Small cohort of patients with epilepsy showed increased activity on Facebook before sudden unexpected death.

Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) remains a leading cause of death in people with epilepsy. Despite the constant risk for patients and bereavement to family members, to date the physiological mechanisms of SUDEP remain unknown. Here we explore the potential to identify putative predictive signals of SUDEP from online digital behavioral data using text and sentiment analysis tools. Specifically, we analyze Facebook timelines of six patients with epilepsy deceased due to SUDEP, donated by surviving family members. We find preliminary evidence for behavioral changes detectable by text and sentiment analysis tools. Namely, in the months preceding their SUDEP event patient social media timelines show: i) increase in verbosity; ii) increased use of functional words; and iii) sentiment shifts as measured by different sentiment analysis tools. Combined, these results suggest that social media engagement, as well as its sentiment, may serve as possible early-warning signals for SUDEP in people with epilepsy. While the small sample of patient timelines analyzed in this study prevents generalization, our preliminary investigation demonstrates the potential of social media data as complementary data in larger studies of SUDEP and epilepsy.

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP): Definition, epidemiology, and significance of education.

People with epilepsy (PWE) may die suddenly and unexpectedly and without a clear under-lying pathological etiology; this is called SUDEP (sudden unexpected death in epilepsy). The pooled estimated incidence rate for SUDEP is 23 times the incidence rate of sudden death in the general population with the same age. Empowering healthcare professionals, PWE, and their care-givers with the appropriate knowledge about SUDEP is very important to enable efficient preventive measures in PWE. In the current narrative review, following a brief discussion on the definition, epidemiology, and risk factors for SUDEP, the authors discuss the importance of appropriately educating healthcare professionals, PWE, and their caregivers about SUDEP.

SUDEP education among U.S. and international neurology trainees.

We evaluated baseline sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) knowledge and counseling practices among national and international adult neurology trainees with a 12-question online survey. The survey was emailed to all 169 U.S. neurology residency program directors and select international neurology/epilepsy program leaders. Program leaders were asked to distribute the survey link to adult neurology trainees. There were 161 respondents in the U.S. and 171 respondents outside the U.S. The latter were from 25 Latin American, European, Asian, and African countries. More than 90% of all trainees reported familiarity with SUDEP definition. Familiarity with SUDEP risk factors and mitigation measures ranged from 56% to 67% across these groups, with international trainees slightly more familiar with risk factors (67% vs. 61% in U.S.) but less familiar with mitigation measures (56% vs. 63% in U.S.). Approximately half of national (49%) and international (54%) trainees rarely or never counseled patients on SUDEP. Less than half of national (44%) and international (41%) trainees were educated about SUDEP. Many U.S. and adult neurology trainees remain unfamiliar with SUDEP risk factors and mitigation measures. Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy counseling falls below recommended standards. We suggest that worldwide neurology training programs' leaderships consider improving SUDEP education targeted at adult neurology trainees.

Predictors of SUDEP counseling and implications for designing interventions.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe how often and why clinicians counsel people with epilepsy about sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP). Understanding counseling gaps can help design interventions. METHODS: We searched clinical notes of 77,924 patients from 2010 to 2014 from six hospitals to find examples of SUDEP counseling and seizure safety counseling. Visits were coded for patient, clinician, and visit factors, and documented reasons for counseling. We evaluated factors associated with SUDEP vs. seizure safety counseling, and reasons for counseling using bivariate and multivariable statistics. Reasons for counseling included: poor medication adherence, lifestyle factors (e.g., poor sleep, drinking alcohol), patient/family reluctance to make recommended medication adjustment, epilepsy surgery considerations, and patient education only. RESULTS: Analysis was restricted to two of six hospitals where 91% of counseling occurred. Documentation of SUDEP counseling was rare (332 of 33,821 patients, 1.0%), almost exclusively by epileptologists (98.5% of counseling), and stable over time, X2 (4, n = 996) = 3.81, p = 0.43. Adult neurologists were more likely to document SUDEP counseling than pediatric (OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.12-2.44). Most SUDEP counseling was documented with a goal of seizure reduction (214 of 332, 64.5%), though some was for patient education only (118 of 332, 35.5%). By the time SUDEP counseling was documented, the majority of patients had refractory epilepsy (187 of 332, 56.3%) and/or a potentially modifiable risk factor (214 of 332, 64.5%). Neurologists with more years of clinical experience (OR = 2.18, 95% CI = 1.12-4.25) and more senior academic titles (OR = 2.25, 95% CI = 1.27-3.99) were more likely to document SUDEP counseling for patient education only. People with ≥2 anti-seizure medications (ASM) were more likely to receive counseling for patient education (OR = 2.72, 95% CI = 1.49-4.97). CONCLUSIONS: Documentation of SUDEP is rare, and varies by clinician, hospital, and patient factors. Efforts to increase SUDEP counseling should focus on junior clinicians, and emphasize starting the conversation soon after onset of epilepsy.

Can We Prevent Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP)?

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) remains an important cause of epilepsy-related mortality, especially in patients with refractory epilepsy. The exact cause is not known, but postictal cardiac, respiratory, and brainstem dysfunctions are implicated. SUDEP prevention remains a big challenge. Except for low-quality evidence of preventive effect of nocturnal supervision for SUDEP, no other evidence-based preventive modality is available. Other potential preventive strategies for SUDEP include reducing the occurrence of generalized tonic-clonic seizures using seizure detection devices, detecting cardiorespiratory distress through respiratory and heart rate monitoring devices, preventing airway obstruction (safety pillows), and reducing central hypoventilation using selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and adenosine and opiate antagonists. However, none of the above-mentioned modalities has been proven to prevent SUDEP. The present review intends to provide insight into the available SUDEP prevention modalities.

[SUDEP in brief - knowledge and practice recommendations on sudden unexpected death in epilepsy]. / SUDEP kompakt ­ praxisrelevante Erkenntnisse und Empfehlungen zum plötzlichen, unerwarteten Tod bei Epilepsie.

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is the sudden and unexpected death of an epilepsy patient, which occurs under benign circumstances without evidence of typical causes of death. SUDEP concerns all epilepsy patients. The individual risk depends on the characteristics of the epilepsy and seizures as well as on living conditions. Focal to bilateral and generalized tonic-clonic seizures (TCS), nocturnal seizures and lack of nocturnal supervision increase the risk. Most SUDEP cases are due to a fatal cascade of apnea, hypoxemia and asystole in the aftermath of a TCS. Two thirds of SUDEP cases in unsupervised epilepsy patients with TCS could probably be prevented. Wearables can detect TCS and alert caregivers. SUDEP information is desired by most patients and relatives, has a favorable impact on treatment adherence and behavior and has no negative effects on mood and quality of life.Recommendations of the committee on patient safety of the German Society of Epileptology: the ultimate treatment goal is seizure freedom. If this cannot be achieved, control of TCS should be sought. All epilepsy patients and their relatives should be informed about SUDEP and risk factors. Patients and relatives should be informed about measures to counteract the elevated risk and imminent SUDEP. The counselling should be performed during a face-to-face discussion, at the time of first diagnosis or during follow-up visits. The counselling should be documented. Wearables for TCS detection can be recommended. If TCS persist, therapeutic efforts should be continued. The bereaved should be contacted after a SUDEP.

Summit on Exercise Collapse Associated with Sickle Cell Trait: Finding the "Way Ahead".

ABSTRACT: Although largely benign, sickle cell trait (SCT) has been associated with exertion-related events, to include sudden death. In 2011, a summit on SCT introduced the term exercise collapse associated with SCT (ECAST). A series of ECAST deaths in military personnel in 2019 prompted reevaluation of current efforts and led to a second summit in October 2019 hosted by the Consortium for Health and Military Performance of the Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, MD. The goals were to (1) review current service policies on SCT screening, (2) develop draft procedural instructions for executing current policy on SCT within the Department of Defense, (3) develop draft clinical practice guidelines for management of ECAST, (4) establish a framework for education on SCT and ECAST, and (5) prepare a research agenda to address identified gaps.

Missed Opportunities for Prevention of Sudden Death.

BACKGROUND: We assessed patterns of health care utilization to further characterize chronic comorbidities prior to sudden death. METHOD: From March 1, 2013, through February 28, 2015, all out-of-hospital deaths aged 18-64 reported by emergency medical services in Wake County, North Carolina, were screened to adjudicate 399 sudden death victims. Retrospective analysis of clinical records on victims determined health care utilization. Health care utilization frequency was assessed by latent growth curve analysis. RESULTS: Medical records were available for 264 victims (aged 53.5 ± 9.2) who were predominantly male (65%) and white (64%). Of these, 210 (80%) victims had at least one visit within two years of death and 73 (28%) had a visit within one month of death. Over the two years prior to death, there was an increasing frequency of doctor visits (P < .001). Victims averaged 3.7 ± 4.6 yearly visits and were categorized into low (0.4 visits/year), medium (3.3 visits/year), and high (11.4 visits/year) tiers of visit frequency. The high visit tier had a greater prevalence of coronary artery disease (38%), hypertension (80%), diabetes (58%), depression (74%), anxiety (64%), and substance misuse (46%) (P < .001). LIMITATIONS: Those who were non-free-living, minors, without formal medical records, and adults aged 65 and older were excluded from the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of sudden death victims utilized health care within two years prior to death and had comorbidities that may have contributed to their unexpected death. The increasing frequency of visits prior to death provided an opportunity for health care providers to address potential victims' chronic medical conditions to potentially prevent death.

Mitral Valve Prolapse, Ventricular Arrhythmias, and Sudden Death.

Despite a 2% to 3% prevalence of echocardiographically defined mitral valve prolapse (MVP) in the general population, the actual burden, risk stratification, and treatment of the so-called arrhythmic MVP are unknown. The clinical profile is characterized by a patient, usually female, with mostly bileaflet myxomatous disease, mid-systolic click, repolarization abnormalities in the inferior leads, and complex ventricular arrhythmias with polymorphic/right bundle branch block morphology, without significant regurgitation. Among the various pathophysiologic mechanisms of electrical instability, left ventricular fibrosis in the papillary muscles and inferobasal wall, mitral annulus disjunction, and systolic curling have been recently described by pathological and cardiac magnetic resonance studies in sudden death victims and patients with arrhythmic MVP. In addition, premature ventricular beats arising from the Purkinje tissue as ventricular fibrillation triggers have been documented by electrophysiologic studies in MVP patients with aborted sudden death. The genesis of malignant ventricular arrhythmias in MVP probably recognizes the combination of the substrate (regional myocardial hypertrophy and fibrosis, Purkinje fibers) and the trigger (mechanical stretch) eliciting premature ventricular beats because of a primary morphofunctional abnormality of the mitral valve annulus. The main clinical challenge is how to identify patients with arrhythmic MVP (which imaging technique and in which patient) and how to treat them to prevent sudden death. Thus, there is a necessity for prospective multicenter studies focusing on the prognostic role of cardiac magnetic resonance and electrophysiologic studies and on the therapeutic efficacy of targeted catheter ablation and mitral valve surgery in reducing the risk of life-threatening arrhythmias, as well as the role of implantable cardioverter defibrillators for primary prevention.

The Epileptic Heart: Concept and clinical evidence.

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is generally considered to result from a seizure, typically convulsive and usually but not always occurring during sleep, followed by a sequence of events in the postictal period starting with respiratory distress and progressing to eventual cardiac asystole and death. Yet, recent community-based studies indicate a 3-fold greater incidence of sudden cardiac death in patients with chronic epilepsy than in the general population, and that in 66% of cases, the cardiac arrest occurred during routine daily activity and without a temporal relationship with a typical seizure. To distinguish a primarily cardiac cause of death in patients with epilepsy from the above description of SUDEP, we propose the concept of the "Epileptic Heart" as "a heart and coronary vasculature damaged by chronic epilepsy as a result of repeated surges in catecholamines and hypoxemia leading to electrical and mechanical dysfunction." This review starts with an overview of the pathophysiological and other lines of evidence supporting the biological plausibility of the Epileptic Heart, followed by a description of tools that have been used to generate new electrocardiogram (EKG)-derived data in patients with epilepsy that strongly support the Epileptic Heart concept and its propensity to cause sudden cardiac death in patients with epilepsy independent of an immediately preceding seizure.

Treatments for the prevention of Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP).

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review, published in 2016, Issue 7. Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) is defined as sudden, unexpected, witnessed or unwitnessed, non-traumatic or non-drowning death of people with epilepsy, with or without evidence of a seizure, excluding documented status epilepticus and in whom postmortem examination does not reveal a structural or toxicological cause for death. SUDEP has a reported incidence of 1 to 2 per 1000 patient-years and represents the most common epilepsy-related cause of death. The presence and frequency of generalised tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS), male sex, early age of seizure onset, duration of epilepsy, and polytherapy are all predictors of risk of SUDEP. The exact pathophysiology of SUDEP is currently unknown, although GTCS-induced cardiac, respiratory, and brainstem dysfunction appears likely. Appropriately chosen antiepileptic drug treatment can render around 70% of patients free of all seizures. However, around one-third will remain drug-resistant despite polytherapy. Continuing seizures place patients at risk of SUDEP, depression, and reduced quality of life. Preventative strategies for SUDEP include reducing the occurrence of GTCS by timely referral for presurgical evaluation in people with lesional epilepsy and advice on lifestyle measures; detecting cardiorespiratory distress through clinical observation and seizure, respiratory, and heart rate monitoring devices; preventing airway obstruction through nocturnal supervision and safety pillows; reducing central hypoventilation through physical stimulation and enhancing serotonergic mechanisms of respiratory regulation using selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs); and reducing adenosine and endogenous opioid-induced brain and brainstem depression. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions in preventing SUDEP in people with epilepsy by synthesising evidence from randomised controlled trials of interventions and cohort and case-control non-randomised studies. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update we searched the following databases without language restrictions: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web, 4 February 2019); MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 1 February 2019); SCOPUS (1823 to 4 February 2019); PsycINFO (EBSCOhost, 1887 to 4 January 2019); CINAHL Plus (EBSCOhost, 1937 to 4 February 2019); ClinicalTrials.gov (5 February 2019); and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 5 February 2019). We checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional reports of relevant studies and contacted lead study authors for any relevant unpublished material. We identified any grey literature studies published in the last five years by searching: Zetoc database; ISI Proceedings; International Bureau for Epilepsy (IBE) congress proceedings database; International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) congress proceedings database; abstract books of symposia and congresses, meeting abstracts, and research reports. SELECTION CRITERIA: We aimed to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs; prospective non-randomised cohort controlled and uncontrolled studies; and case-control studies of adults and children with epilepsy receiving an intervention for the prevention of SUDEP. Types of interventions included: early versus delayed pre-surgical evaluation for lesional epilepsy; educational programmes; seizure-monitoring devices; safety pillows; nocturnal supervision; selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs); opiate antagonists; and adenosine antagonists. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We aimed to collect data on study design factors and participant demographics for included studies. The primary outcome of interest was the number of deaths from SUDEP. Secondary outcomes included: number of other deaths (unrelated to SUDEP); change in mean depression and anxiety scores (as defined within the study); clinically important change in quality of life, that is any change in quality of life score (average and endpoint) according to validated quality of life scales; and number of hospital attendances for seizures. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 1277 records from the databases and search strategies. We found 10 further records by searching other resources (handsearching). We removed 469 duplicate records and screened 818 records (title and abstract) for inclusion in the review. We excluded 785 records based on the title and abstract and assessed 33 full-text articles. We excluded 29 studies: eight studies did not assess interventions to prevent SUDEP; eight studies were review articles, not clinical studies; five studies measured sensitivity of devices to detect GTCS but did not directly measure SUDEP; six studies assessed risk factors for SUDEP but not interventions for preventing SUDEP; and two studies did not have a control group. We included one cohort study and three case-control studies of serious to critical risk of bias. The 6-month prospective cohort study observed no significant effect of providing patients with SUDEP information on drug compliance and quality of life, anxiety and depression levels. The study was too short and with no deaths observed in either group to determine a protective effect. Two case control studies reported a protective effect for nocturnal supervision against SUDEP. However due to significant heterogeneity, the results could not be combined in meta-analysis. One study of 154 SUDEP cases and 616 controls reported an unadjusted odds ratio (OR) of 0.34 (95% CI 0.22 to 0.53; P < 0.0001). The same study demonstrated the protective effect was independent of seizure control, suggesting that nocturnal supervision is not just a surrogate marker of seizure control. The second case-control study of 48 SUDEP cases and 220 controls reported an unadjusted OR of 0.08 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.27; P < 0.0001). The third case-control study of residential care centre patients who were already receiving physical checks more than 15 minutes apart throughout the night did not report any protective effect for additional nocturnal supervision (physical checks < 15 minutes apart; use of listening devices; dormitory setting; and use of bed sensors). However the same study did ascertain a difference between centres: the residential centre with the lowest level of supervision had the highest incidence of SUDEP. The case-control studies did not report on quality of life or depression and anxiety scores. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found limited, very low-certainty evidence that supervision at night reduces the incidence of SUDEP. Further research is required to identify the effectiveness of other current interventions - for example seizure detection devices, safety pillows, SSRIs, early surgical evaluation, educational programmes, and opiate and adenosine antagonists - in preventing SUDEP in people with epilepsy.