Search

IntroductionAutomated seizure detection promises to aid in the prevention of SUDEP and improve the quality of care by assisting in epilepsy diagnosis and treatment adjustment.MethodsIn this phase 2 exploratory study, the performance of a contactless, marker-free, video-based motor seizure detection system is assessed, considering video recordings of patients (age 0–80 years), in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves, with respect to video-electroencephalographic monitoring (VEM) as the medical gold standard. Detection performances of five categories of motor epileptic seizures (tonic–clonic, hyperkinetic, tonic, unclassified motor, automatisms) and psychogenic non-epileptic seizures (PNES) with a motor behavioral component lasting for >10 s were assessed independently at different detection thresholds (rather than as a categorical classification problem). A total of 230 patients were recruited in the study, of which 334 in-scope (>10 s) motor seizures (out of 1,114 total seizures) were identified by VEM reported from 81 patients. We analyzed both daytime and nocturnal recordings. The control threshold was evaluated at a range of values to compare the sensitivity (n = 81 subjects with seizures) and false detection rate (FDR) (n = all 230 subjects).ResultsAt optimal thresholds, the performance of seizure groups in terms of sensitivity (CI) and FDR/h (CI): tonic–clonic- 95.2% (82.4, 100%); 0.09 (0.077, 0.103), hyperkinetic- 92.9% (68.5, 98.7%); 0.64 (0.59, 0.69), tonic- 78.3% (64.4, 87.7%); 5.87 (5.51, 6.23), automatism- 86.7% (73.5, 97.7%); 3.34 (3.12, 3.58), unclassified motor seizures- 78% (65.4, 90.4%); 4.81 (4.50, 5.14), and PNES- 97.7% (97.7, 100%); 1.73 (1.61, 1.86). A generic threshold recommended for all motor seizures under study asserted 88% sensitivity and 6.48 FDR/h.DiscussionThese results indicate an achievable performance for major motor seizure detection that is clinically applicable for use as a seizure screening solution in diagnostic workflows.

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of Bergen Epileptiform Morphology Score (BEMS) and interictal epileptiform discharge (IED) candidate count in EEG classification.MethodsWe included 400 consecutive patients from a clinical SCORE EEG database during 2013–2017 who had focal sharp discharges in their EEG, but no previous diagnosis of epilepsy. Three blinded EEG readers marked all IED candidates. BEMS and IED candidate counts were combined to classify EEGs as epileptiform or non-epileptiform. Diagnostic performance was assessed and then validated in an external dataset.ResultsInterictal epileptiform discharge (IED) candidate count and BEMS were moderately correlated. The optimal criteria to classify an EEG as epileptiform were either one spike at BEMS > = 58, two at > = 47, or seven at > = 36. These criteria had almost perfect inter-rater reliability (Gwet’s AC1 0.96), reasonable sensitivity of 56–64%, and high specificity of 98–99%. The sensitivity was 27–37%, and the specificity was 93–97% for a follow-up diagnosis of epilepsy. In the external dataset, the sensitivity for an epileptiform EEG was 60–70%, and the specificity was 90–93%.ConclusionQuantified EEG spike morphology (BEMS) and IED candidate count can be combined to classify an EEG as epileptiform with high reliability but with lower sensitivity than regular visual EEG review.

Background: Electric and magnetic source imaging methods (ESI, MSI) estimate the location in the brain of the sources generating the interictal epileptiform discharges (II-ESI, II-MSI) and the ictal activity (IC-ESI, IC-MSI). These methods provide potentially valuable clinical information in the presurgical evaluation of patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, evaluated for surgical therapy. In spite of the significant technical advances in this field, and the numerous papers published on clinical validation of these methods, ESI and MSI are still underutilized in most epilepsy centers performing a presurgical evaluation. Our goal was to review and summarize the published evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of interictal and ictal ESI and MSI in epilepsy surgery.Methods: We searched the literature for papers on ESI and MSI that specified the diagnostic reference standard as the site of resection and the postoperative outcome (seizure-freedom). We extracted data from the selected studies, to calculate the diagnostic accuracy measures.Results: Our search resulted in 797 studies; 48 studies fulfilled the selection criteria (25 ESI and 23 MSI studies), providing data from 1,152 operated patients (515 for II-ESI, 440 for II-MSI, 159 for IC-ESI, and 38 for IC-MSI). The sensitivity of source imaging methods was between 74 and 90% (highest for IC-ESI). The specificity of the source imaging methods was between 20 and 54% (highest for II-MSI). The overall accuracy was between 50 and 75% (highest for IC-ESI). Diagnostic Odds Ratio was between 0.8 (IC-MSI) and 4.02–7.9 (II-ESI < II-MSI < IC-ESI).Conclusions: Our systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence for the accuracy of source imaging in presurgical evaluation of patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. These methods have high sensitivity (up to 90%) and diagnostic odds ratio (up to 7.9), but the specificity is lower (up to 54%). ESI and MSI should be included in the multimodal presurgical evaluation.

Background: In contrast to many neuroimaging modalities, clinical interpretation of EEG does not take advantage of post-processing and digital signal analysis. In most centers, EEG is still interpreted at sensor level, exactly as half a century ago. A major task in clinical EEG interpretation is the identification of interictal epileptiform discharges (IEDs). However, due to the overlap of background activity, IEDs can be hard to detect in the scalp EEG. Since traditional montages, like bipolar and average reference, are linear transformations of the recorded channels, the question is whether we can provide linear transformations of the digital EEG to take it back into the brain, at least on a macroscopic level. The goal is to improve visibility of epileptiform activities and to separate out most of the overlap.Methods: Multiple discrete sources provide a stable linear inverse to transform the EEG into source space with little cross-talk between source regions. The model can be based on a few dipoles or regional sources, adapted to the individual EEG and MRI data, or on selected standard sources evenly distributed throughout the brain, e.g. below the 25 EEG standard electrodes.Results: Auditory and somatosensory evoked potentials serve as teaching examples to show how various source spaces can reveal the underlying source components including their loss or alteration due to lesions. Source spaces were able to reveal the propagation of source activities in frontal IEDs and the sequential activation of the major nodes of the underlying epileptic network in myoclonic epilepsy. The power of multiple discrete sources in separating the activities of different brain regions was also evident in the ongoing EEG of cases with frontal cortical dysplasia and bitemporal lobe epilepsy. The new source space 25 made IEDs more clearly visible over the EEG background signals. The more focal nature of source vs. scalp space was quantitatively confirmed using a new measurement of focality.Conclusion: Multiple discrete sources have the power to transform the EEG back into the brain by defining new EEG traces in source space. Using standard source space 25, these can provide for improved clinical interpretation of EEG.

Seizure detection, and more recently seizure forecasting, represent important avenues of clinical development in epilepsy, promoted by progress in wearable devices and mobile health (mHealth), which might help optimizing seizure control and prevention of seizure-related mortality and morbidity in persons with epilepsy. Yet, very long-term continuous monitoring of seizure-sensitive biosignals in the ambulatory setting presents a number of challenges. We herein provide an overview of these challenges and current technological landscape of mHealth devices for seizure detection. Specifically, we display, which types of sensor modalities and analytical methods are available, and give insight into current clinical practice guidelines, main outcomes of clinical validation studies, and discuss how to evaluate device performance at point-of-care facilities. We then address pitfalls which may arise in patient compliance and the need to design solutions adapted to user experience.