Pellegrini A, Zanotto L, Dal Pos F, Dossi R C, Testa G
Clinica Neurologica, Università, Padova.
Riv Neurol. 1989 Sep-Oct;59(5):167-71.
Ambulatory EEGs (EEGAs) were recorded in 251 patients. In 91 of these patients there was a suspicion of having epileptic seizures, in 117 a diagnosis of epilepsy was already established, in 43 the withdrawal of antiepileptic drugs was envisaged being apparently free from seizures for years. The EEGA showed epileptogenic abnormalities in 31% of patients of the first group. This percentage was not far from the one obtained with standard EEG (EEGS) recordings. In the second group, a divergence was found, as for the classification of seizures, between the ictal events actually recorded on the EEGA and the definition of seizures based on clinical information. Furthermore ictal events recorded by the EEGA were less frequent than one would have anticipated according to the seizure frequency asserted by the patients. In the third group the EEGA disclosed the persistence of epileptic seizures, mostly represented by diffuse spike and wave discharges, in about 30% of the patients. Finally, comparison of the results obtained by the EEGA with those obtained by the EEGS in all patients suggested that the two recording techniques are complementary.
对251例患者进行了动态脑电图(EEGA)记录。其中91例患者疑似患有癫痫发作,117例已确诊为癫痫,43例预计停用抗癫痫药物,这些患者显然已多年未发作。在第一组患者中,EEGA显示31%的患者存在致痫性异常。该百分比与标准脑电图(EEGS)记录所得的百分比相差不大。在第二组中,发现对于癫痫发作的分类,EEGA实际记录的发作事件与基于临床信息的癫痫发作定义之间存在差异。此外,EEGA记录的发作事件比根据患者声称的发作频率预期的要少。在第三组中,EEGA显示约30%的患者存在癫痫发作持续存在,主要表现为弥漫性棘波和慢波放电。最后,对所有患者EEGA与EEGS所得结果的比较表明,这两种记录技术具有互补性。