Suppr超能文献

癫痫监测单元(EMU)中的安全信号的疗效:我们是否应该担心?

Efficacy of safety signals in the epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU): should we worry?

机构信息

Edward B. Bromfield Epilepsy Program, Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.

出版信息

Epilepsy Behav. 2012 Apr;23(4):458-61. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2012.01.018. Epub 2012 Feb 29.

Abstract

There is little consensus regarding the critical safety measures to prevent harm in epilepsy monitoring units (EMUs). We sought to determine whether the safety signals (SS) triggered during EMU events differed by seizure type and the efficacy of SS in alerting responders. We screened 468 consecutive EMU admissions from January 2008 until April 2011 for definitive events to evaluate the first 50 events of complex partial seizures (CPS), generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTC), and psychogenic non-epileptic seizures (PNES). Response to telemetry signal was slower than to push button (PB). When there was PB alarm, response time was slower in patients with PNES. A higher proportion of PNES were triggered by PB. A greater percentage of epileptic seizures were missed compared with PNES. Future studies investigating more effective techniques to capture every epileptic seizure are warranted as 24/7 monitoring by healthcare professionals is not feasible in many settings.

摘要

对于预防癫痫监测单元 (EMU) 中伤害的关键安全措施,目前尚未达成共识。我们试图确定在 EMU 事件中触发的安全信号 (SS) 是否因发作类型而有所不同,以及 SS 在提醒响应者方面的效果。我们从 2008 年 1 月至 2011 年 4 月筛选了 468 例连续的 EMU 入院患者,以评估复杂部分性发作 (CPS)、全面性强直-阵挛性发作 (GTC) 和心因性非癫痫性发作 (PNES) 的首次 50 例明确事件。对遥测信号的反应比按按钮 (PB) 慢。当 PB 报警时,PNES 患者的反应时间较慢。更多的 PNES 是由 PB 触发的。与 PNES 相比,癫痫发作的漏诊率更高。由于在许多情况下,医疗保健专业人员无法进行 24/7 监测,因此有必要进行未来的研究,以探索更有效的技术来捕捉每一次癫痫发作。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验