Inpatient long-term video-electroencephalographic monitoring event capture audiovisual diagnostic quality.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term video-electroencephalographic monitoring (LTVEM) represents the gold-standard method to evaluate whether events represent electrographic seizures, but limited work has evaluated the quality of inpatient event capture. We evaluated the frequency of audiovisual factors impairing the ideal electroclinical correlation of seizure-like episodes during LTVEM. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive inpatient LTVEM studies (11/2019-12/2019) from three academic epilepsy centers. We evaluated all pushbutton events for audiovisual characteristics such as whether the event was narrated, whether the patient was blocked on camera, and what diagnostic challenges impaired the electroencephalographer's ability to understand either the reason the event button was pushed or clinical semiology ("electroclinical correlation"). We determined the percent of events and studies with each outcome. RESULTS: There were 154 studies with 520 pushbutton events. The pushbutton was most commonly activated by patients (41%), followed by nurses (31%) or family (17%). Twenty-nine percent of events represented electrographic seizures, and 78% occurred in the Epilepsy Monitoring Unit. The reason for the push was not stated in 45% of events, and inadequate narration impaired electroclinical correlation in 19% of events. At least one relevant part of the patient's body was blocked during 12% of events, but this impaired electroclinical correlation in only 1% of events. There was at least one factor impairing electroclinical correlation in 21% of events, most commonly due to incomplete narration (N = 99), lights off (N = 15), or blankets covering the patient (N = 15). At least one factor impaired electroclinical correlation for any event in 36% of studies. CONCLUSION: Audiovisual factors impairing the electroencephalographer's ability to render an electroclinical correlation were common, particularly related to inadequate narration from bedside observers to explain the reason for pushing the button or event semiology. Future efforts to develop targeted countermeasures should address narration challenges and improve inpatient seizure monitoring quality metrics.

The Utility of the Repeatable Battery of Neuropsychological Status in Patients with Temporal and Non-temporal Lobe Epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) is a brief neuropsychological battery that has been validated in the assessment of dementia and other clinical populations. The current study examines the utility of the RBANS in patients with epilepsy. METHODS: Ninety-eight patients with epilepsy completed the RBANS as part of a more comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation. Performance on the RBANS was evaluated for patients with a diagnosis of temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE; n = 51) and other epilepsy patients (non-TLE, n = 47) in comparison to published norms. Multivariate analysis of variance compared group performances on RBANS indices. Rates of impairment were also compared across groups using cutoff scores of ≤1.0 and ≤1.5 standard deviations below the normative mean. Exploratory hierarchical regressions were used to examine the relations between epilepsy severity factors (i.e., age of onset, disease duration, and number of antiepileptic drugs [AEDs]) and RBANS performance. RESULTS: TLE and non-TLE patients performed below the normative sample across all RBANS indices. Those with TLE performed worse than non-TLE patients on the Immediate and Delayed Memory indices and exhibited higher rates of general cognitive impairment. Number of AEDs was the only epilepsy severity factor that significantly predicted RBANS total performance, accounting for 14% of the variance. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the RBANS has utility in evaluating cognition in patients with epilepsy and can differentiate TLE and non-TLE patients. Additionally, number of AEDs appears to be associated with global cognitive performance in adults with epilepsy.

Continuous EEG findings in patients with COVID-19 infection admitted to a New York academic hospital system.

OBJECTIVE: There is evidence for central nervous system complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection, including encephalopathy. Encephalopathy caused by or arising from seizures, especially nonconvulsive seizures (NCS), often requires electroencephalography (EEG) monitoring for diagnosis. The prevalence of seizures and other EEG abnormalities among COVID-19-infected patients is unknown. METHODS: Medical records and EEG studies of patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 infections over a 2-month period at a single US academic health system (four hospitals) were reviewed to describe the distribution of EEG findings including epileptiform abnormalities (seizures, periodic discharges, or nonperiodic epileptiform discharges). Factors including demographics, remote and acute brain injury, prior history of epilepsy, preceding seizures, critical illness severity scores, and interleukin 6 (IL-6) levels were compared to EEG findings to identify predictors of epileptiform EEG abnormalities. RESULTS: Of 111 patients monitored, most were male (71%), middle-aged or older (median age 64 years), admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU; 77%), and comatose (70%). Excluding 11 patients monitored after cardiac arrest, the most frequent EEG finding was moderate generalized slowing (57%), but epileptiform findings were observed in 30% and seizures in 7% (4% with NCS). Three patients with EEG seizures did not have epilepsy or evidence of acute or remote brain injury, although all had clinical seizures prior to EEG. Only having epilepsy (odds ratio [OR] 5.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-21) or seizure(s) prior to EEG (OR 4.8, 95% CI 1.7-13) was independently associated with epileptiform EEG findings. SIGNIFICANCE: Our study supports growing evidence that COVID-19 can affect the central nervous system, although seizures are unlikely a common cause of encephalopathy. Seizures and epileptiform activity on EEG occurred infrequently, and having a history of epilepsy or seizure(s) prior to EEG testing was predictive of epileptiform findings. This has important implications for triaging EEG testing in this population.

Increased odds and predictive rates of MMPI-2-RF scale elevations in patients with psychogenic non-epileptic seizures and observed sex differences.

OBJECTIVE: The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) is a self-report instrument, previously shown to differentiate patients with epileptic seizures (ES) and psychogenic non-epileptic seizures (PNES). At present, the odds of MMPI-2-RF scale elevations in PNES patients, as well as the diagnostic predictive value of such scale elevations, remain largely unexplored. This can be of clinical utility, particularly when a diagnosis is uncertain. METHOD: After looking at mean group differences, we applied contingency table derived odds ratios to a sample of ES (n=92) and PNES (n=77) patients from a video EEG (vEEG) monitoring unit. We also looked at the positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV), as well as the false discovery rate (FDR) and false omission rate (FOR) for scales found to have increased odds of elevation in PNES patients. This was completed for the overall sample, as well as the sample stratified by sex. RESULTS: The odds of elevations related to somatic concerns, negative mood, and suicidal ideation in the PNES sample ranged from 2 to 5 times more likely. Female PNES patients had 3-6 times greater odds of such scale elevations, while male PNES patients had odds of 5-15 times more likely. PPV rates ranged from 53.66% to 84.62%, while NPV rates ranged from 47.52% to 90.91%. FDR across scales ranged from 15.38% to 50%, while the FOR ranged from 9.09% to 52.47%. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with prior research, PNES patients have greater odds of MMPI-2-RF scale elevations, particularly related to somatic concerns and mood disturbance. Female PNES patients endorsed greater emotional distress, including endorsement of suicide related items. Elevations of these scales could aid in differentiating PNES from ES patients, although caution is warranted due to the possibility of both false positives and the incorrect omissions of PNES cases.

Epilepsy monitoring unit length of stay.

With an increasing focus on quality metrics, hospital length of stay (LOS) in the U.S. has garnered significant scrutiny. To help establish evidence-based benchmarks for epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU) metrics, we evaluated the impact of multiple variables on LOS through a retrospective analysis of 905 consecutive inpatient adult EMU admissions. The most common reasons for admission were event characterization (n=494), medication adjustment (n=189), and presurgical evaluation (n=96). Presurgical evaluations experienced a longer average LOS (aLOS) of 7.1days versus patients admitted for other indications (p<0.001). Patients with symptomatic generalized epilepsy (n=22) had a longer aLOS (6.9days) than patients with other types of epilepsy/events (p<0.001). Patients admitted on two or fewer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) had a shorter aLOS than patients admitted on three or more AEDs (4.3days vs 6.3days, respectively; p<0.001). A history of previous invasive epilepsy management was associated with a longer aLOS than those without (6.2days vs 4.7days, respectively; p<0.0001). Epilepsy monitoring unit aLOS is influenced by admission indication, epilepsy classification, medication burden, and having had prior invasive management. Multiple variables should be considered when analyzing LOS EMU metrics, arguing against a "one size fits all" approach.

Antiepileptic drug treatment: new drugs and new strategies.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Selection of the ideal antiepileptic drug (AED) for an individual patient can be a daunting process. Choice of treatment should be based on several factors, including but not limited to epilepsy classification, AED mechanism of action, AED side-effect profile, and drug interactions. Special consideration must be given to populations such as women, older adults, patients with other medical comorbidities, and patients who are newly diagnosed. RECENT FINDINGS: Head-to-head trials between AEDs in newly diagnosed patients rarely demonstrate that one AED is more or less effective. The second-generation drugs, lamotrigine, topiramate, oxcarbazepine, zonisamide, and levetiracetam, have undergone head-to-head trials confirming similar efficacy and equal or better tolerability than standard drugs in focal epilepsy. SUMMARY: A thoughtful approach to the AED selection process must factor in data from clinical AED trials as well as a variety of patient characteristics and confounding factors. When neurologists apply an individualized approach to AED drug selection for their patients, they can find an effective and well-tolerated drug for most patients.

Psychogenic nonepileptic seizures and chronic pain: a retrospective case-controlled study.

PURPOSE: Psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) can be challenging to diagnose, but certain clinical features can help to distinguish PNES from epileptic seizures. The purpose of this study is to assess chronic pain and prescribed pain medication use in PNES patients. METHODS: A case-controlled, retrospective analysis was performed examining pain medication use in 85 PNES patients versus an active control group of 85 patients with idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE). RESULTS: Chronic pain was more frequent among PNES patients (N=40) than active controls (N=10) (p<0.0001). Reported use of prescription pain medication was higher among PNES patients (N=20) versus active controls (N=6) (p=0.0048). The Positive Predictive Value of prescription pain medications for PNES patients was 76.9%. Opioid use in the PNES population was higher compared with active controls (p=0.0096). When excluding patients with a dual diagnosis of PNES and epilepsy from the latter two analyses and comparing these results to those that included this patient population, no statistically significant difference in results was found. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PNES are more likely than those with IGE to report chronic pain disorders. A history of chronic pain and opioid use among patients with seizures raises the possibility of PNES. Among patients with PNES and chronic pain, a psychogenic etiology for pain and non-opiate pain management strategies should be considered.

Differentiating between nonepileptic and epileptic seizures.

Psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) resemble epileptic seizures and are often misdiagnosed and mistreated as the latter. Occasionally, epileptic seizures are misdiagnosed and mistreated as PNES. 70% of PNES cases develop between the second and fourth decades of life, but this disease can also affect children and the elderly. At least 10% of patients with PNES have concurrent epileptic seizures or have had epileptic seizures before being diagnosed with PNES. Psychological stress exceeding an individual's coping capacity often precedes PNES. Clinicians can find differentiating between PNES and epileptic seizures challenging. Some clinical features can help distinguish PNES from epileptic seizures, but other features associated with PNES are nonspecific and occur during both types of seizures. Diagnostic errors often result from an overreliance on specific clinical features. Note that no single feature is pathognomonic for PNES. When typical seizures can be recorded, video-EEG is the diagnostic gold standard for PNES, and in such cases a diagnosis can be made with high accuracy. When video-EEG reveals no epileptiform activity before, during or after the ictus, thorough neurological and psychiatric histories can be used to confirm the diagnosis of PNES. In this article, we review the clinical features that can help clinicians differentiate between PNES and epileptic seizures.

New generation antiepileptic drugs: what do they offer in terms of improved tolerability and safety?

Over the last two decades a total of 11 antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) have been introduced to the US market. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials have yielded information about each drug's efficacy, tolerability, and safety profile; however, few studies have compared the newer generation AEDs directly with the older generation. Comparative studies are not always straightforward in their interpretation, as many characteristics of drugs, both favorable and unfavorable, may not be highlighted by such studies. In general, findings from the literature suggest that the newer generation AEDs (including vigabatrin, felbamate, gabapentin, lamotrigine, tiagabine, topiramate, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, zonisamide, pregabalin, rufinamide, and lacosamide) enjoy both improved tolerability and safety compared with older agents such as phenobarbital, phenytoin, carbamazepine, and valproate. This is partially supported by some of the findings of the QSS and the TTA Committee of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), whose review of four AEDs (gabapentin, lamotrigine, topiramate, and tiagabine) is discussed. Briefly, when compared with carbamazepine, lamotrigine was better tolerated; topiramate adverse events (AEs) were fairly comparable to carbamazepine and valproate; and tiagabine compared with placebo was associated with a higher discontinuation rate due to AEs. The findings of the SANAD trial are also presented; when administered to patients with partial epilepsy, carbamazepine was most likely to fail due to AEs, and lamotrigine and gabapentin were least likely to fail due to AEs. When administered to patients with idiopathic generalized epilepsy, topiramate was most frequently associated with AE-related discontinuation, followed by valproate; and while valproate was the most efficacious drug in this arm of the study, lamotrigine was more tolerable. What makes the SANAD study valuable and somewhat unique is its head-to-head comparison of one drug with another. Such comparative trials are overall lacking for new AEDs, although some conclusions can be drawn from the available data. In the end, however, AED selection must be based on individual patient and drug characteristics.

Seizure-free outcome in randomized add-on trials of the new antiepileptic drugs.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study is to (1) provide clinically useful, previously unpublished comparative analyses of seizure-freedom rates for newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), and (2) recommend a standard for data presentation and analysis. METHODS: Data were reviewed from placebo-controlled adjunctive trials in refractory patients of gabapentin (GPN), lamotrigine (LTG), topiramate (TOP), tiagabine (TGB), oxcarbazepine (OXC), levetiracetam (LEV), zonisamide (ZNS), and pregabalin (PGB). Seizure-freedom analyses in these publications, if included at all, consistently included both patients who completed the trial, and those who dropped out prior to completion (last observation carried forward, LOCF). This has the potential to increase reported seizure-free outcomes. Pharmaceutical companies were contacted for the provision of unpublished seizure-free data in the patients who completed the entire study. RESULTS: In most cases, LOCF analysis produced a higher rate of seizure freedom compared to complete analysis. A total of 0%-1.1% of the LOCF population was seizure-free in the GPN trials (complete data not available). For the remaining AEDs, seizure-freedom results in the LOCF versus complete populations were: 0.7% versus 0.8% (LTG trial); 12% versus 2.6% (OXC trial); 3.6%-6.4% versus 3.9%-7.1% (LEV trial); 3.7%-7.9% versus 1.3%-1.4% (PGB trial); and 6.0% versus 3.0% (ZNS trial, minus titration period). CONCLUSIONS: By employing LOCF, a clinically unrealistic picture of seizure-free rates may be reported. Access to complete data is informative, as it includes only those patients who were able to tolerate the drug at doses that produced seizure freedom. Ideally, data from both ITT and complete analyses should be made available.