Tablet-based electroencephalography diagnostics for patients with epilepsy in the West African Republic of Guinea.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Epilepsy is most common in lower-income settings where access to electroencephalography (EEG) is generally poor. A low-cost tablet-based EEG device may be valuable, but the quality and reproducibility of the EEG output are not established. METHODS: Tablet-based EEG was deployed in a heterogeneous epilepsy cohort in the Republic of Guinea (2018-2019), consisting of a tablet wirelessly connected to a 14-electrode cap. Participants underwent EEG twice (EEG1 and EEG2), separated by a variable time interval. Recordings were scored remotely by experts in clinical neurophysiology as to data quality and clinical utility. RESULTS: There were 149 participants (41% female; median age 17.9 years; 66.6% ≤21 years of age; mean seizures per month 5.7 ± SD 15.5). The mean duration of EEG1 was 53 ± 12.3 min and that of EEG2 was 29.6 ± 12.8 min. The mean quality scores of EEG1 and EEG2 were 6.4 [range, 1 (low) to 10 (high); both medians 7.0]. A total of 44 (29.5%) participants had epileptiform discharges (EDs) at EEG1 and 25 (16.8%) had EDs at EEG2. EDs were focal/multifocal (rather than generalized) in 70.1% of EEG1 and 72.5% of EEG2 interpretations. A total of 39 (26.2%) were recommended for neuroimaging after EEG1 and 22 (14.8%) after EEG2. Of participants without EDs at EEG1 (n = 53, 55.8%), seven (13.2%) had EDs at EEG2. Of participants with detectable EDs on EEG1 (n = 23, 24.2%), 12 (52.1%) did not have EDs at EEG2. CONCLUSIONS: Tablet-based EEG had a reproducible quality level on repeat testing and was useful for the detection of EDs. The incremental yield of a second EEG in this setting was ~13%. The need for neuroimaging access was evident.

Decision analysis of intracranial monitoring in non-lesional epilepsy.

PURPOSE: Up to one third of epilepsy patients develop pharmacoresistant seizures and many benefit from resective surgery. However, patients with non-lesional focal epilepsy often require intracranial monitoring to localize the seizure focus. Intracranial monitoring carries operative morbidity risk and does not always succeed in localizing the seizures, making the benefit of this approach less certain. We performed a decision analysis comparing three strategies for patients with non-lesional focal epilepsy: (1) intracranial monitoring, (2) vagal nerve stimulator (VNS) implantation and (3) medical management to determine which strategy maximizes the expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for our base cases. METHOD: We constructed two base cases using parameters reported in the medical literature: (1) a young, otherwise healthy patient and (2) an elderly, otherwise healthy patient. We constructed a decision tree comprising strategies for the treatment of non-lesional epilepsy and two clinical outcomes: seizure freedom and no seizure freedom. Sensitivity analyses of probabilities at each branch were guided by data from the medical literature to define decision thresholds across plausible parameter ranges. RESULTS: Intracranial monitoring maximizes the expected QALYs for both base cases. The sensitivity analyses provide estimates of the values of key variables, such as the surgical risk or the chance of localizing the focus, at which intracranial monitoring is no longer favored. CONCLUSION: Intracranial monitoring is favored over VNS and medical management in young and elderly patients over a wide, clinically-relevant range of pertinent model variables such as the chance of localizing the seizure focus and the surgical morbidity rate.