Grosso Salvatore, Galimberti Daniela, Vezzosi Piero, Farnetani Mariangela, Di Bartolo Rosanna Maria, Bazzotti Simone, Morgese Guido, Balestri Paolo
Department of Pediatrics, Pediatric Neurology Section, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
Epilepsia. 2005 Nov;46(11):1796-801. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2005.00277.x.
To evaluate how diagnostic criteria influence remission rates for patients with childhood absence epilepsy (CAE) and to assess clinical and EEG parameters as predictors of outcome.
One hundred nineteen patients were diagnosed with CAE, according to International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) classification criteria. They were subsequently evaluated according to stricter diagnostic criteria. Sixty-two subjects fulfilled these criteria as group 2; 57 did not and constituted group 1. Diagnostic parameters that prevented patients of group 1 from entering group 2, and variables such as sex, familial history of generalized epilepsy, and personal history of febrile convulsions also were tested as prognostic factors for terminal remission.
Compared with those in group 1, patients of group 2 had significantly higher rates of seizure control (95% vs. 77%), higher rates of terminal remission (82% vs. 51%), fewer generalized tonic-clonic seizures (8% vs. 30%), and shorter mean periods of treatment (2.2 vs. 3.8 years). Significantly fewer patients were receiving polytherapy in group 2 than in group 1 (11% vs. 47%), and fewer patients had seizure relapses at antiepileptic drug discontinuation (0 vs. 22%).
Remission rates of patients with CAE are greatly influenced by the classification criteria used for selection. Stricter diagnostic criteria allow the definition of a homogeneous group of patients with excellent prognosis. Factors predicting unfavorable prognosis were generalized tonic-clonic seizures in the active stage of absences, myoclonic jerks, eyelid myoclonia or perioral myoclonia, and EEG features atypical for CAE.
评估诊断标准如何影响儿童失神癫痫(CAE)患者的缓解率,并评估临床和脑电图参数作为预后预测指标。
根据国际抗癫痫联盟(ILAE)分类标准,119例患者被诊断为CAE。随后根据更严格的诊断标准对他们进行评估。62名受试者符合这些标准,组成第2组;57名不符合,组成第1组。阻止第1组患者进入第2组的诊断参数,以及诸如性别、全身性癫痫家族史和热性惊厥个人史等变量,也作为最终缓解的预后因素进行了测试。
与第1组相比,第2组患者的癫痫控制率显著更高(95%对77%),最终缓解率更高(82%对51%),全身性强直阵挛发作更少(8%对30%),平均治疗时间更短(2.2年对3.8年)。第2组接受联合治疗的患者明显少于第1组(11%对47%),停用抗癫痫药物后癫痫复发的患者也更少(0对22%)。
CAE患者的缓解率受用于选择的分类标准的极大影响。更严格的诊断标准有助于定义一组预后良好的同质患者。预测预后不良的因素包括失神发作活跃期的全身性强直阵挛发作、肌阵挛抽搐、眼睑肌阵挛或口周肌阵挛,以及CAE非典型的脑电图特征。