Is baseline routine renal ultrasound indicated for all MS patients?

BACKGROUND: Most patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) develop multiple urological complaints due to hyperactive or hypoactive bladder, and may have detrusor-sphincter dyssynergia. Routine renal ultrasound (RUS) screening has been recommended for both symptomatic and asymptomatic MS patients; however, there is little data to support this practice. METHODS: Prospectively screened consecutive MS clinic patients in 2016-2017 with functional systems scores (FSS) indicating moderate to severe neurogenic bladder symptoms (FSS bladder ≥2) were sent for RUS. We also screened for history of urinary tract infections. RESULTS: 872 patients were screened between 3 September 2016 and 13 April 2017. 58 patients met inclusion criteria for RUS. 6 were excluded due to non-compliance with testing or unavailability of results; 52 patients were imaged. Only 3/52 patients were found to have renal pathology requiring follow-up. Of those three, one had known symptomatic nephrolithiasis, and one had subsequently normal findings, leaving one patient newly found to have valid abnormal upper urinary tract (UUT) findings. Multiple incidental findings were also discovered. CONCLUSION: The minimal yield for significant UUT pathology found in this enriched group of symptomatic MS patients indicates that RUS screening for asymptomatic MS patients without clear risk factors is not indicated. Red flags for high risk of UUT complications should be used as triggers for baseline RUS screening in MS patients.

Seizures, Antiepileptic Drugs, and CKD.

There are 2 major categories of patients with seizures and chronic kidney disease (CKD): patients who develop acute symptomatic seizures in the setting of CKD and patients with epilepsy who at some point develop CKD. The incidence of uremic seizures with kidney failure is ∼10%. These seizures are often nonconvulsive and may mimic uremic encephalopathy. Recognition and management of such situations may be challenging for treating physicians who are non-neurologists. Furthermore, practitioners caring for patients with seizures with or without an established diagnosis of epilepsy in the setting of CKD frequently encounter challenges in the selection, loading, titration, and maintenance of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) due to potentially altered pharmacokinetics of the AEDs. We review the pathophysiology of uremia, uremic seizures, and other neurologic complications of kidney failure; management approaches to the treatment of such complications; the relevant mechanisms of action and pharmacokinetics of AEDs with their use in CKD; and in particular, the management of AEDs in patients requiring hemodialysis therapy.

Heart rate and autonomic biomarkers distinguish convulsive epileptic vs. functional or dissociative seizures.

OBJECTIVE: 20-40% of individuals whose seizures are not controlled by anti-seizure medications exhibit manifestations comparable to epileptic seizures (ES), but there are no EEG correlates. These events are called functional or dissociative seizures (FDS). Due to limited access to EEG-monitoring and inconclusive results, we aimed to develop an alternative diagnostic tool that distinguishes ES vs. FDS. We evaluated the temporal evolution of ECG-based measures of autonomic function (heart rate variability, HRV) to determine whether they distinguish ES vs. FDS. METHODS: The prospective study includes patients admitted to the University of Rochester Epilepsy Monitoring Unit. Participants are 18-65 years old, without therapies or co-morbidities associated with altered autonomics. A habitual ES or FDS is recorded during admission. HRV analysis is performed to evaluate the temporal changes in autonomic function during the peri­ictal period (150-minutes each pre-/post-ictal). We determined if autonomic measures distinguish ES vs. FDS. RESULTS: The study includes 53 ES and 46 FDS. Temporal evolution of HR and autonomics significantly differ surrounding ES vs. FDS. The pre-to-post-ictal change (delta) in HR differs surrounding ES vs. FDS, stratified for convulsive and non-convulsive events. Post-ictal HR, total autonomic (SDNN & Total Power), vagal (RMSSD & HF), and baroreflex (LF) function differ for convulsive ES vs. convulsive FDS. HR distinguishes non-convulsive ES vs. non-convulsive FDS with ROC>0.7, sensitivity>70%, but specificity<50%. HR-delta and post-ictal HR, SDNN, RMSSD, LF, HF, and Total Power each distinguish convulsive ES vs. convulsive FDS (ROC, 0.83-0.98). Models with HR-delta and post-ictal HR provide the highest diagnostic accuracy for convulsive ES vs. convulsive FDS: 92% sensitivity, 94% specificity, ROC 0.99). SIGNIFICANCE: HR and HRV measures accurately distinguish convulsive, but not non-convulsive, events (ES vs. FDS). Results establish the framework for future studies to apply this diagnostic tool to more heterogeneous populations, and on out-of-hospital recordings, particularly for populations without access to epilepsy monitoring units.

Utilization of Epilepsy Monitoring Unit by General Neurologists.

Background Epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU) is a growing service that allows physicians to evaluate, diagnose, and manage epilepsy in a safe and cost-effective way. However, observations have indicated that the EMU is being underutilized by general neurology practice, possibly due to the lack of access and specific criteria known to all neurologists. There is limited data as of yet to support these observations. This study reviewed the rate of referral to the EMU from outpatient general neurology clinics at our institution. Methods In this retrospective study, records of 350 patients, 18 years or older with a diagnosis or diagnostic workup of epilepsy, managed by neurologists who did not specialize in epilepsy, were reviewed. We classified patients into three groups: ineligible for EMU referral, eligible and referred to EMU, and eligible but not referred to EMU based on six criteria namely characterization, classification, localization, determination of seizure frequency, medication adjustment, and differentiation between seizures and medication side effects. Results Our results demonstrated that 36.7% of patients who did meet the criteria were not referred to EMU. The most common criteria for patient referral in both groups, referred and not referred, was the characterization of seizures as epileptic or functional. Conclusion Our results show that EMU is underutilized by our general neurology clinics. Providing more information and increased awareness about criteria for long-term monitoring in EMU can improve the utility of this valuable tool and would be beneficial to patient care.