Search

The American Epilepsy Society Meeting in New Orleans attracted more than 5900 attendees. There was a lively exchange of new science, innovation, education, clinical practice, and many other items related to epilepsy. Educational symposia were a major part of the meeting and explored varying topics of interest for all types of epilepsy professionals. This article reviews highlights of the meeting presented in major symposia. Topics ranged from how to treat varying aspects of epilepsy as a consultant in the hospital to finding the scientific underpinning of the interaction between sleep and epilepsy. Pros and cons of novel antiseizure medications, dietary, and stimulation treatments were discussed. Epilepsy may impair memory and we need to learn what is the pathophysiologic relationship. Febrile status epilepticus may have severe consequences for a later life with seizures. Epilepsy professionals should be very well aware of the ethical implications of devasting seizures and their associated disability. These are just a few select topics of the many that we need to study further to archive the final goal to improve the lives of patients with epilepsy.

IntroductionCritical Care Continuous EEG (CCEEG) is a common procedure to monitor brain function in patients with altered mental status in intensive care units. There is significant variability in patient populations undergoing CCEEG and in technical specifications for CCEEG performance.MethodsThe Critical Care Continuous EEG Task Force of the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society developed expert consensus recommendations on the use of CCEEG in critically ill adults and children.RecommendationsThe consensus panel describes the qualifications and responsibilities of CCEEG personnel including neurodiagnostic technologists and interpreting physicians. The panel outlines required equipment for CCEEG, including electrodes, EEG machine and amplifier specifications, equipment for polygraphic data acquisition, EEG and video review machines, central monitoring equipment, and network, remote access, and data storage equipment. The consensus panel also describes how CCEEG should be acquired, reviewed and interpreted. The panel suggests methods for patient selection and triage; initiation of CCEEG; daily maintenance of CCEEG; electrode removal and infection control; quantitative EEG techniques; EEG and behavioral monitoring by non-physician personnel; review, interpretation, and reports; and data storage protocols.ConclusionRecommended qualifications for CCEEG personnel and CCEEG technical specifications will facilitate standardization of this emerging technology.

Objective: The evaluation to determine candidacy and treatment for epilepsy surgery in persons with drug‐resistant epilepsy (DRE) is not uniform. Many non‐invasive and invasive tests are available to ascertain an appropriate treatment strategy. This study examines expert response to clinical vignettes of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–positive lesional focal cortical dysplasia in both temporal and extratemporal epilepsy to identify associations in evaluations and treatment choice. Methods: We analyzed annual report data and a supplemental epilepsy practice survey reported in 2020 from 206 adult and 136 pediatric epilepsy center directors in the United States. Non‐invasive and invasive testing and surgical treatment strategies were compiled for the two scenarios. We used chi‐square tests to compare testing utilization between the two scenarios. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was performed to assess associations between variables. Results: The supplemental survey response rate was 100% with 342 responses included in the analyses. Differing testing and treatment approaches were noted between the temporal and extratemporal scenarios such as chronic invasive monitoring selected in 60% of the temporal scenario versus 93% of the extratemporal scenario. Open resection was the most common treatment choice; however, overall treatment choices varied significantly (p <.001). Associations between non‐invasive testing, invasive testing, and treatment choices were present in both scenarios. For example, in the temporal scenario stereo‐electroencephalography (SEEG) was more commonly associated with fluorodeoxyglucose–positron emission tomography (FDG‐PET) (odds ratio [OR] 1.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06–3.29; p =.033), magnetoencephalography (MEG) (OR 2.90; 95% CI 1.60–5.28; p = <.001), high density (HD) EEG (OR 2.80; 95% CI 1.27–6.24; p =.011), functional MRI (fMRI) (OR 2.17; 95% CI 1.19–4.10; p =.014), and Wada (OR 2.16; 95% CI 1.28–3.66; p =.004). In the extratemporal scenario, choosing SEEG was associated with increased odds of neuromodulation over open resection (OR 3.13; 95% CI 1.24–7.89; p =.016). Significance: In clinical vignettes of temporal and extratemporal lesional DRE, epilepsy center directors displayed varying patterns of non‐invasive testing, invasive testing, and treatment choices. Differences in practice underscore the need for comparative trials for the surgical management of DRE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Persons with drug‐resistant epilepsy may benefit from epilepsy surgery and should undergo presurgical testing to determine potential candidacy and appropriate intervention. Institutional expertise can influence use and availability of evaluations and epilepsy surgery candidacy. This census survey study aims to examine the influence of geographic region and other center characteristics on presurgical testing for medically intractable epilepsy. Methods: We analyzed annual report and supplemental survey data reported in 2020 from 206 adult epilepsy center directors and 136 pediatric epilepsy center directors in the United States. Test utilization data were compiled with annual center volumes, available resources, and US Census regional data. We used Wilcoxon rank‐sum, Kruskal–Wallis, and chi‐squared tests for univariate analysis of procedure utilization. Multivariable modeling was also performed to assign odds ratios (ORs) of significant variables. Results: The response rate was 100% with individual element missingness < 11% across 342 observations undergoing univariate analysis. A total of 278 complete observations were included in the multivariable models, and significant regional differences were present. For instance, compared to centers in the South, those in the Midwest used neuropsychological testing (OR = 2.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2–6.86; p =.018) and fluorodeoxyglucose–positron emission tomography (OR = 2.74, 95% CI = = 1.14–6.61; p =.025) more commonly. For centers in the Northeast (OR =.46, 95% CI =.23–.93; p =.031) and West (OR =.41, 95% CI =.19–.87; p =.022), odds of performing single‐photon emission computerized tomography were lower by nearly 50% compared to those in the South. Center accreditation level, demographics, volume, and resources were also associated with varying individual testing rates. Significance: Presurgical testing for drug‐resistant epilepsy is influenced by US geographic region and other center characteristics. These findings have potential implications for comparing outcomes between US epilepsy centers and may inject disparities in access to surgical treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study was undertaken to evaluate benzodiazepine (BZD) administration patterns before transitioning to non‐BZD antiseizure medication (ASM) in pediatric patients with refractory convulsive status epilepticus (rSE). Methods: This retrospective multicenter study in the United States and Canada used prospectively collected observational data from children admitted with rSE between 2011 and 2020. Outcome variables were the number of BZDs given before the first non‐BZD ASM, and the number of BZDs administered after 30 and 45 min from seizure onset and before escalating to non‐BZD ASM. Results: We included 293 patients with a median (interquartile range) age of 3.8 (1.3–9.3) years. Thirty‐six percent received more than two BZDs before escalating, and the later the treatment initiation was after seizure onset, the less likely patients were to receive multiple BZD doses before transitioning (incidence rate ratio [IRR] =.998, 95% confidence interval [CI] =.997–.999 per minute, p =.01). Patients received BZDs beyond 30 and 45 min in 57.3% and 44.0% of cases, respectively. Patients with out‐of‐hospital seizure onset were more likely to receive more doses of BZDs beyond 30 min (IRR = 2.43, 95% CI = 1.73–3.46, p <.0001) and beyond 45 min (IRR = 3.75, 95% CI = 2.40–6.03, p <.0001) compared to patients with in‐hospital seizure onset. Intermittent SE was a risk factor for more BZDs administered beyond 45 min compared to continuous SE (IRR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.01–2.06, p =.04). Forty‐seven percent of patients (n = 94) with out‐of‐hospital onset did not receive treatment before hospital arrival. Among patients with out‐of‐hospital onset who received at least two BZDs before hospital arrival (n = 54), 48.1% received additional BZDs at hospital arrival. Significance: Failure to escalate from BZDs to non‐BZD ASMs occurs mainly in out‐of‐hospital rSE onset. Delays in the implementation of medical guidelines may be reduced by initiating treatment before hospital arrival and facilitating a transition to non‐BZD ASMs after two BZD doses during handoffs between prehospital and in‐hospital settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study was undertaken to describe long‐term clinical and developmental outcomes in pediatric refractory status epilepticus (RSE) and identify factors associated with new neurological deficits after RSE. Methods: We performed retrospective analyses of prospectively collected observational data from June 2011 to March 2020 on pediatric patients with RSE. We analyzed clinical outcomes from at least 30 days after RSE and, in a subanalysis, we assessed developmental outcomes and evaluated risk factors in previously normally developed patients. Results: Follow‐up data on outcomes were available in 276 patients (56.5% males). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) follow‐up duration was 1.6 (.9–2.7) years. The in‐hospital mortality rate was 4% (16/403 patients), and 15 (5.4%) patients had died after hospital discharge. One hundred sixty‐six (62.9%) patients had subsequent unprovoked seizures, and 44 (16.9%) patients had a repeated RSE episode. Among 116 patients with normal development before RSE, 42 of 107 (39.3%) patients with available data had new neurological deficits (cognitive, behavioral, or motor). Patients with new deficits had longer median (IQR) electroclinical RSE duration than patients without new deficits (10.3 [2.1–134.5] h vs. 4 [1.6–16] h, p =.011, adjusted odds ratio = 1.003, 95% confidence interval = 1.0008–1.0069, p =.027). The proportion of patients with an unfavorable functional outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale‐Extended score ≥ 4) was 22 of 90 (24.4%), and they were more likely to have received a continuous infusion. Significance: About one third of patients without prior epilepsy developed recurrent unprovoked seizures after the RSE episode. In previously normally developing patients, 39% presented with new deficits during follow‐up, with longer electroclinical RSE duration as a predictor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We aimed to characterize the clinical profile and outcomes of new onset refractory status epilepticus (NORSE) in children, and investigated the relationship between fever onset and status epilepticus (SE). Methods: Patients with refractory SE (RSE) between June 1, 2011 and October 1, 2016 were prospectively enrolled in the pSERG (Pediatric Status Epilepticus Research Group) cohort. Cases meeting the definition of NORSE were classified as "NORSE of known etiology" or "NORSE of unknown etiology." Subgroup analysis of NORSE of unknown etiology was completed based on the presence and time of fever occurrence relative to RSE onset: fever at onset (≤24 h), previous fever (2 weeks–24 h), and without fever. Results: Of 279 patients with RSE, 46 patients met the criteria for NORSE. The median age was 2.4 years, and 25 (54%) were female. Forty (87%) patients had NORSE of unknown etiology. Nineteen (48%) presented with fever at SE onset, 16 (40%) had a previous fever, and five (12%) had no fever. The patients with preceding fever had more prolonged SE and worse outcomes, and 25% recovered baseline neurological function. The patients with fever at onset were younger and had shorter SE episodes, and 89% recovered baseline function. Significance: Among pediatric patients with RSE, 16% met diagnostic criteria for NORSE, including the subcategory of febrile infection‐related epilepsy syndrome (FIRES). Pediatric NORSE cases may also overlap with refractory febrile SE (FSE). FIRES occurs more frequently in older children, the course is usually prolonged, and outcomes are worse, as compared to refractory FSE. Fever occurring more than 24 h before the onset of seizures differentiates a subgroup of NORSE patients with distinctive clinical characteristics and worse outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]