Do we intervene less and slower in the epilepsy monitoring unit for psychogenic seizures?

PURPOSE: Individuals with psychogenic non-epileptic seizures (PNES) can be stigmatized in healthcare settings. We aimed to compare intervention rate (IR), intervention time (IT), and adverse event (AE) rate between PNES and epileptic seizures (ES) in the epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU). METHODS: We used a prospective database of consecutive admissions to our centre's EMU between August 2021 and September 2022. We excluded purely electric seizures and vague, minor spells with no EEG correlate. We therefore only included electroclinical seizures and PNES. We compared the IR, IT, and AE rate between PNES and ES, as diagnosed by an epileptologist during EEG monitoring. We performed the same comparisons between spells occurring in people admitted with a high vs low suspicion of PNES (HSP vs LSP). We also verified if ITs became longer with repeated PNES. RESULTS: We analyzed 586 spells: 43 PNES vs 543 ES, or 133 HSP vs 453 LSP. Our univariate analyses showed that IR was higher for PNES than for ES (93 % vs 61 %, p <.001) but that IT and AE rate were similar across groups. This higher IR was only apparent outside weekday daytime hours, when EEG technologists were not present. HSP did not differ from LSP in terms of IR, IT, and AE rate. As PNES accumulated in individual patients, IT tended to be longer (Spearman's correlation = 0.42; p =.012). SIGNIFICANCE: Our EMU staff did not intervene less or slower for PNES. Rather, IR was higher for PNES than for ES, but IT tended to be longer with repeat PNES.

Intervention Time and Adverse Events in a Canadian Epilepsy Monitoring Unit.

BACKGROUND: Intervention time (IT) in response to seizures and adverse events (AEs) have emerged as key elements in epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU) management. We performed an audit of our EMU, focusing on IT and AEs. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study on all clinical seizures of admissions over a 1-year period at our Canadian academic tertiary care center's EMU. This EMU was divided in two subunits: a daytime three-bed epilepsy department subunit (EDU) supervised by EEG technicians and a three-bed neurology ward subunit (NWU) equipped with video-EEG where patients were transferred to for nights and weekends, under nursing supervision. Among 124 admissions, 58 were analyzed. A total of 1293 seizures were reviewed to determine intervention occurrence, IT, and AE occurrence. Seizures occurring when the staff was present at bedside at seizure onset were analyzed separately. RESULTS: Median IT was 21.0 (11.0-40.8) s. The EDU, bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (BTCS), and the presence of a warning signal were associated with increased odds of an intervention taking place. The NWU, BTCS, and seizure rank (seizures were chronologically ordered by the patient for each subunit) were associated with longer ITs. Bedside staff presence rate was higher in the EDU than in the NWU (p < 0.001). AEs occurred in 19% of admissions, with no difference between subunits. AEs were more frequent in BTCS than in other seizure types (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that close monitoring by trained staff members dedicated to EMU patients is key to optimize safety. AE rate was high, warranting corrective measures.