Department of Medicine (Austin Health), Epilepsy Research Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Department of Medicine, Melbourne Brain Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Epilepsia. 2021 Jul;62(7):1494-1504. doi: 10.1111/epi.16929. Epub 2021 May 20.
A substantial proportion of individuals with newly diagnosed epilepsy report prior seizures, suggesting a missed opportunity for early epilepsy care and management. Consideration of the causes and outcomes of diagnostic delay is needed to address this issue. We aimed to review the literature pertaining to delay to diagnosis of epilepsy, describing the components, characteristics, and risk factors for delay. We undertook a systematic search of the literature for full-length original research papers with a focus on diagnostic delay or seizures before diagnosis, published 1998-2020. Findings were collated, and a narrative review was undertaken. Seventeen papers met the inclusion criteria. Studies utilized two measures of diagnostic delay: seizures before diagnosis and/or a study-defined time between first seizure and presentation/diagnosis. The proportion of patients with diagnostic delay ranged from 16% to 77%; 75% of studies reported 38% or more to be affected. Delays of 1 year or more were reported in 13%-16% of patients. Seizures prior to diagnosis were predominantly nonconvulsive, and usually more than one seizure was reported. Prior seizures were often missed or mistaken for symptoms of other conditions. Key delays in the progression to specialist review and diagnosis were (1) "decision delay" (the patient's decision to seek/not seek medical review), (2) "referral delay" (delay by primary care/emergency physician referring to specialist), and (3) "attendance delay" (delay in attending specialist review). There were few data available relevant to risk factors and virtually none relevant to outcomes of diagnostic delay. This review found that diagnostic delay consists of several components, and progression to diagnosis can stall at several points. There is limited information relating to most aspects of delay apart from prevalence and seizure types. Risk factors and outcomes may differ according to delay characteristics and for each of the key delays, and recommendations for future research include examining each before consideration of interventions is made.
相当比例的新诊断为癫痫的患者报告有既往发作,提示在癫痫的早期管理方面存在机会错失。考虑诊断延迟的原因和结果对于解决这个问题很有必要。我们旨在回顾与癫痫诊断延迟相关的文献,描述延迟的组成部分、特征和风险因素。我们对 1998 年至 2020 年间发表的、以诊断延迟或诊断前发作(定义为首次发作和就诊/诊断之间的时间)为重点的全长度原始研究论文进行了系统的文献搜索。对发现进行了整理,并进行了叙述性综述。有 17 篇论文符合纳入标准。研究采用了两种诊断延迟的衡量标准:诊断前的发作和/或首次发作与就诊/诊断之间的研究定义时间。有诊断延迟的患者比例范围从 16%到 77%;75%的研究报告有 38%或更多的患者受到影响。13%-16%的患者报告延迟 1 年或以上。诊断前的发作主要是非惊厥性的,而且通常报告不止一次发作。既往发作常常被忽视或误诊为其他疾病的症状。在向专家咨询和诊断的过程中,存在三个主要的延迟阶段:(1)“决策延迟”(患者决定是否寻求或不寻求医疗审查);(2)“转诊延迟”(初级保健/急诊医生将患者转介给专家);(3)“就诊延迟”(延迟就诊专家)。与诊断延迟的风险因素和结果相关的数据很少,几乎没有关于诊断延迟结果的数据。本综述发现,诊断延迟由多个组成部分组成,并且诊断过程可能在几个阶段停滞不前。除了患病率和发作类型外,有关延迟的大多数方面的信息都很有限。风险因素和结果可能因延迟的特征和每个关键延迟而有所不同,未来的研究建议在考虑干预措施之前检查每个延迟阶段。