Lawley Andrew, Manfredonia Francesco, Cavanna Andrea E
Department of Neurology, Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, UK.
Department of Neuropsychiatry, Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK; School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston Brain Centre, Aston University, Birmingham, UK; Sobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, Institute of Neurology at UCL, London, UK.
Epilepsy Behav. 2016 Apr;57(Pt A):137-140. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2016.02.005. Epub 2016 Mar 3.
The development and optimization of protocols using simultaneous video recording alongside long-term electroencephalography (EEG), such as ambulatory EEG (AEEG), expanded the range of available techniques for the investigation of paroxysmal clinical events. In particular, video-AEEG has received increasing attention over the last few years because of its potential to further improve diagnostic utility in the differential diagnosis between epileptic and nonepileptic seizures. We retrospectively evaluated 88 video-AEEG studies in order to assess the diagnostic utility of video-AEEG in 87 patients consecutively referred to a neurophysiology department. Typical clinical events occurred during 55 studies (62.5%). In 26 of these, at least one event was also clearly seen on video recording, contributing to a confident diagnosis. Clinical events were classified according to three diagnostic categories: epileptic seizures (6 studies, 6.8%), physiologic nonepileptic events (13 studies, 14.8%), or psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (36 studies, 40.9%). Of the studies with an event not recorded on video, a confident diagnosis could be reached in 55.2% of cases. The main reason for unsuccessful video recording was failure to activate the camcorder by the patient or carer. We found an overall diagnostic utility of 67.0%, which confirms the findings of previous reports evaluating the diagnostic yield of AEEG. Implementation of video-AEEG protocols in a secondary care center appears to have high diagnostic utility, particularly for patients with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures. Our findings prompt further research into the potential applications of video-AEEG, in consideration of important implications for successful patient management and healthcare resource allocation.
使用同步视频记录与长期脑电图(EEG)相结合的方案,如动态脑电图(AEEG),其开发和优化扩大了用于研究阵发性临床事件的可用技术范围。特别是,视频AEEG在过去几年中受到越来越多的关注,因为它有可能进一步提高在癫痫发作和非癫痫发作鉴别诊断中的诊断效用。我们回顾性评估了88项视频AEEG研究,以评估视频AEEG对87例连续转诊至神经生理科患者的诊断效用。在55项研究(62.5%)中发生了典型临床事件。其中26项研究中,至少有一个事件在视频记录中也清晰可见,有助于做出明确诊断。临床事件根据三个诊断类别进行分类:癫痫发作(6项研究,6.8%)、生理性非癫痫事件(13项研究,14.8%)或心因性非癫痫发作(36项研究,40.9%)。在视频未记录到事件的研究中,55.2%的病例能够做出明确诊断。视频记录未成功的主要原因是患者或护理人员未启动摄像机。我们发现总体诊断效用为67.0%,这证实了先前评估AEEG诊断率的报告结果。在二级护理中心实施视频AEEG方案似乎具有很高的诊断效用,特别是对于心因性非癫痫发作的患者。考虑到对成功管理患者和分配医疗资源的重要影响,我们的研究结果促使对视频AEEG的潜在应用进行进一步研究。