Adecuación y efecto del tratamiento antiepiléptico preventivo tras una primera crisis epiléptica a los 30 días del alta / Adequacy and effect of preventive antiepileptic treatment after a first epileptic seizure 30 days after discharge from hospital emergency departments: the ACESUR registry

Objetivo. Evaluar la adecuación y el efecto del tratamiento antiepiléptico preventivo en pacientes adultos con una primera crisis epiléptica en cuanto a resultados adversos a los 30 días del alta del servicio de urgencias hospitalario (SUH). Pacientes y métodos. ACESUR fue un registro observacional de cohortes multipropósito, prospectivo y multicéntrico con un muestreo sistemático. Se realizó seguimiento telefónico a los 30 días. Se recogieron variables clínicas en la visita índice y de resultado en seguimiento. La variable principal fue "tratamiento preventivo adecuado según indicaciones", y la de resultado, "algún resultado adverso" (recurrencia de crisis epiléptica, revisita a SUH, hospitalización o muerte) a los 30 días del alta de urgencias. Se realizó un modelo de regresión logística para aislar el efecto del tratamiento preventivo adecuado. Resultados. Se incluyó a 151 (22,7%) pacientes con una media de 55 años con primera crisis epiléptica, dados de alta de 18 SUH con datos de seguimiento. El tratamiento preventivo se consideró adecuado en 128 (84,8%) pacientes. Cuarenta y un (27,2%) pacientes presentaron algún resultado adverso a los 30 días del alta. Tras la regresión logística, el tratamiento preventivo adecuado al alta del SUH ejerce un efecto protector sobre la variable "algún resultado adverso a 30 días". Conclusiones. En el registro ACESUR, el tratamiento preventivo fue adecuado en la mayoría de los pacientes y su efecto resultó, de forma independiente, protector a los 30 días. Por tanto, el tratamiento preventivo adecuado podría mejorar los resultados a corto plazo de pacientes adultos dados de alta con una primera crisis epiléptica del SUH

Aim. To evaluate the adequacy and effect of preventive antiepileptic treatment in adult patients with the first epileptic seizure in adverse outcomes at 30 days after discharge from the hospital emergency department (HED). Patients and methods. ACESUR was an observational registry of multipurpose, prospective and multicentric cohorts with a systematic sampling. Phone follow-up was done at 30 days. Clinical variables were collected in the index visit and the follow-up result. The main variable was "adequate preventive treatment according to indications" and the result of "some adverse outcome" (recurrence of epileptic seizure, revisits to HED, hospitalization or death) 30 days after discharge from HED. A logistic regression model was used to isolate the effect of adequate preventive treatment. Results. 151 (22.7%) patients with a mean age of 55 years old were included with first epileptic seizure discharged from 18 HED with follow-up data. Preventive treatment was considered adequate in 128 (84.8%) patients. 41 (27.2%) patients presented some adverse outcome 30 days after discharge. After the logistic regression, the appropriate preventive treatment to the discharge of the HED exerts a protective effect on the variable "some adverse outcome to 30 days". Conclusions. In the ACESUR registry, preventive treatment was adequate for most patients and its effect was independent protective at 30 days. Therefore, adequate preventive treatment could improve the short-term results of adult patients discharged with the first epileptic seizure of the HED

Modelo de riesgo a 30 días en los pacientes adultos con crisis epiléptica dados de alta de urgencias (RACESUR) / Adults discharged after an epileptic seizure: a model of 30-day risk for adverse outcomes

Objetivo: Diseñar un modelo de riesgo para predecir resultado adverso a los 30 días del alta en pacientes adultos atendidos por crisis epiléptica en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH). Metodología: ACESUR fue un registro observacional de cohortes multipropósito, prospectivo, multicéntrico, con muestreo sistemático y con seguimiento telefónico a 30 días. La variable principal fue la presencia de algún resultado adverso (recurrencia de crisis, revisita al SUH, hospitalización o fallecimiento) a 30 días del alta del SUH. Resultados: Se incluyeron 489 (74%) pacientes de 48 años de mediana (RIC 34-66), dados de alta de 18 SUH con datos de seguimiento. Ciento cuarenta y cuatro (29,4%) presentaron algún resultado adverso a 30 días del alta del SUH. El Modelo RACESUR incluyó la presencia de crisis epiléptica no convulsiva generalizada tónico-clónica como motivo de consulta (OR 2,42; IC 95% 1,49-3,90; p < 0,001), consumo habitual de $ 3 fármacos (OR 1,98; IC 95% 1,283,07; p = 0,002) y visita al SUH en el semestre anterior por cualquier causa (OR 2,34; IC 95% 1,7-3,70; p < 0,001). Cada ítem vale 1 punto. El riesgo de padecer un resultado adverso a 30 días fue de un 62,2% con 3 puntos, 38,5% con 2, 25,9% con 1 y 10,9% con 0 puntos. El área bajo la curva del modelo fue de 0,72 (IC 95% 0,675-0,772; p = 0,025). Conclusiones: El Modelo RACESUR podría ser una herramienta pronóstico de utilidad para identificar al paciente adulto con crisis epiléptica y alto riesgo de presentar resultado adverso a los 30 días del alta de urgencias

Objective: To develop a risk model to predict adverse outcomes within 30 days of discharge in adults attended by hospital emergency departments for an epileptic seizure. Methods: ACESUR (Acute Epileptic Seizures in the Emergency Department) is a prospective multicenter, multipurpose registry of cases obtained by systematic sampling. We made follow-up telephone calls to registered patients 30 days after discharge. Clinical variables for the index visit were extracted from the register and variables at 30 days were collected by telephone. The main outcome variable was the occurrence of any adverse outcome (seizure recurrence, emergency department revisit, hospitalization, or death) within 30 days of discharge. Results: Of the patients from the ACESUR registry discharged from 18 hospitals, we included 489 (74%) with complete follow-up information. The median (interquartile range) age was de 48 (34-66) years. One hundred forty-four patients (29.4%) experienced an adverse outcome within 30 days of discharge. Factors included in the ACESUR risk model were generalized nonconvulsive tonic-clonic epileptic seizure as the reason for the index visit (odds ratio [OR], 2.42; 95% CI, 1.49-3.90; P<.001), ongoing use of 3 or more medications (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.28-3.07; P=.002), and an emergency visit for any reason in the 6 months prior to the index event (OR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.47-3.70; P<.001). Each factor contributed 1 point to the risk score. A score of 3 was associated with a 62.2% risk of an adverse outcome within 30 days, a score of 2 was associated with a 38.5% risk, a score of 1 with a 25.9% risk, and a score of 0 with a 10.9% risk. The area under the curve receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.675-0.772; P=.025). Conclusion: The ACESUR risk model may provide a useful score for identifying patients at high risk of an adverse outcome within 30 days of emergency department discharge after an epileptic seizure

Atención de pacientes adultos con crisis epilépticas en servicios de urgencias (Registro ACESUR). Diferencias en función de la edad >= 75 años / Care of adult patients with epileptic seizure in emergency departments (ACESUR Registry). Differences according to >= 75 years

Objetivos: Evaluar si existen diferencias en la presentación clínica y en la atención de pacientes adultos con crisis epilépticas (CE) en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH) en función de la edad ≥75 años y si esta se asocia de manera independiente a resultados en el SUH y a 30 días del alta. Material y métodos: ACESUR es un registro observacional de cohortes multipropósito, prospectivo y multicéntrico, que se llevó a cabo en 2017. Se comparan la distribución de variables correspondientes a la presentación clínica y atención según la edad ≥75 años. Posteriormente se realizan modelos de regresión logística con el objetivo de evaluar el efecto de la edad ≥75 años sobre las variables de resultado. Resultados: Se analizan 541 (81,5%) pacientes <75 años frente a 123 (18,5%) >75 años. En el grupo de longevos se detectó de forma significativa: mayor probabilidad de dependencia, comorbilidad, polifarmacia, visita previa al SUH, llegada en ambulancia, primera CE y clasificación etiopatogénica sintomática. En el análisis multivariado tras ajustar por las variables anteriores, se objetiva que la edad ≥75 años se asocia de manera independiente a una mayor incidencia de prueba complementaria específica (OR: 2,31; IC95%: 1,21-4,44), pero no a intervención farmacológica (OR: 1,63; IC95%: 0,96-2,80) ni hospitalización o estancia prolongada en SUH (OR: 1,56; IC95%: 0,94-2,59). Al ajustar por todas las variables anteriores, la edad ≥75 años se asocia a menor incidencia de algún resultado adverso (recurrencia de CE, revisita al SUH, hospitalización y/o fallecimiento) a 30 días (OR: 0,43; IC95: 0,25-0,77). Conclusiones: En el registro ACESUR se identificaron diferencias en la presentación clínica y en la atención de pacientes con CE en SUH al comparar longevos frente a jóvenes. La edad ≥75 años no se asocia de manera independiente a mayor incidencia de intervención en el SUH ni a algún resultado adverso a 30 días del alta

Objectives: To determine whether there are differences in the profile and in the care of adult patients with epileptic seizures in emergency department according to age ≥75 years, and if this is independently associated with results in the emergency department and 30 days after discharge. Material and methods: ACESUR is a multicentre, prospective, observational cohort multipurpose register that was carried out in 2017. The distribution of the variables corresponding to the clinical presentation and care according to age ≥75 years were compared. Subsequently, logistic regression models were performed with the objective of evaluating the effect of age ≥75 years on the outcome variables. Results: A total of 541 (81.5%) cases younger than 75 years were analysed compared to 123 adult patients (18.5%) of ≥75 years or more. In the group of long-lived it was observed significantly greater probability of dependence, co-morbidity, polypharmacy, a previous visit to the hospital emergency department, arrived by ambulance, first seizures and a symptomatic aetiopathogenic classification. In the multivariate analysis, after adjusting for the above variables, it is observed that age >75 years is associated independently with a higher incidence of specific supplementary tests (OR: 2.31; 95% CI: 1.21-4.44), but not pharmacological intervention (OR: 1.63; 95% CI: 0.96-2.80), or hospitalisation or extended stay in emergency departments (OR: 1.56; 95% CI: 0.94-2.59). On adjusting for all previous variables, age >75 years is associated with lower incidence of adverse events at 30 days (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.25-0.77). Conclusions: In the ACESUR Registry, differences in clinical presentation and in the care of patients with seizures in emergency departments were identified when comparing those patients >75 years with those <75 years. Age ≥75 years is not independently associated with a higher incidence of intervention in emergency departments, or with more adverse outcomes at 30 days after discharge

Adults discharged after an epileptic seizure: a model of 30-day risk for adverse outcomes. / Modelo de riesgo a 30 días en los pacientes adultos con crisis epiléptica dados de alta de urgencias (RACESUR).

OBJECTIVES: To develop a risk model to predict adverse outcomes within 30 days of discharge in adults attended by hospital emergency departments for an epileptic seizure. METHODS: ACESUR (Acute Epileptic Seizures in the Emergency Department) is a prospective multicenter, multipurpose registry of cases obtained by systematic sampling. We made follow-up telephone calls to registered patients 30 days after discharge. Clinical variables for the index visit were extracted from the register and variables at 30 days were collected by telephone. The main outcome variable was the occurrence of any adverse outcome (seizure recurrence, emergency department revisit, hospitalization, or death) within 30 days of discharge. RESULTS: Of the patients from the ACESUR registry discharged from 18 hospitals, we included 489 (74%) with complete follow-up information. The median (interquartile range) age was de 48 (34-66) years. One hundred forty-four patients (29.4%) experienced an adverse outcome within 30 days of discharge. Factors included in the ACESUR risk model were generalized nonconvulsive tonic-clonic epileptic seizure as the reason for the index visit (odds ratio [OR], 2.42; 95% CI, 1.49-3.90; P<.001), ongoing use of 3 or more medications (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.28-3.07; P=.002), and an emergency visit for any reason in the 6 months prior to the index event (OR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.47-3.70; P<.001). Each factor contributed 1 point to the risk score. A score of 3 was associated with a 62.2% risk of an adverse outcome within 30 days, a score of 2 was associated with a 38.5% risk, a score of 1 with a 25.9% risk, and a score of 0 with a 10.9% risk. The area under the curve receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.675-0.772; P=.025). CONCLUSION: The ACESUR risk model may provide a useful score for identifying patients at high risk of an adverse outcome within 30 days of emergency department discharge after an epileptic seizure.

OBJETIVO: Diseñar un modelo de riesgo para predecir resultado adverso a los 30 días del alta en pacientes adultos atendidos por crisis epiléptica en servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH). METODO: ACESUR fue un registro observacional de cohortes multipropósito, prospectivo, multicéntrico, con muestreo sistemático y con seguimiento telefónico a 30 días. La variable principal fue la presencia de algún resultado adverso (recurrencia de crisis, revisita al SUH, hospitalización o fallecimiento) a 30 días del alta del SUH. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 489 (74%) pacientes de 48 años de mediana (RIC 34-66), dados de alta de 18 SUH con datos de seguimiento. Ciento cuarenta y cuatro (29,4%) presentaron algún resultado adverso a 30 días del alta del SUH. El Modelo RACESUR incluyó la presencia de crisis epiléptica no convulsiva generalizada tónico-clónica como motivo de consulta (OR 2,42; IC 95% 1,49-3,90; p < 0,001), consumo habitual de $ 3 fármacos (OR 1,98; IC 95% 1,28- 3,07; p = 0,002) y visita al SUH en el semestre anterior por cualquier causa (OR 2,34; IC 95% 1,7-3,70; p < 0,001). Cada ítem vale 1 punto. El riesgo de padecer un resultado adverso a 30 días fue de un 62,2% con 3 puntos, 38,5% con 2, 25,9% con 1 y 10,9% con 0 puntos. El área bajo la curva del modelo fue de 0,72 (IC 95% 0,675-0,772; p = 0,025). CONCLUSIONES: El Modelo RACESUR podría ser una herramienta pronóstico de utilidad para identificar al paciente adulto con crisis epiléptica y alto riesgo de presentar resultado adverso a los 30 días del alta de urgencias.

[Care of adult patients with epileptic seizure in emergency departments (ACESUR Registry). Differences according to age ≥75 years]. / Atención de pacientes adultos con crisis epilépticas en servicios de urgencias (Registro ACESUR). Diferencias en función de la edad ≥75 años.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether there are differences in the profile and in the care of adult patients with epileptic seizures in emergency department according to age ≥75 years, and if this is independently associated with results in the emergency department and 30 days after discharge. MATERIAL AND METHODS: ACESUR is a multicentre, prospective, observational cohort multipurpose register that was carried out in 2017. The distribution of the variables corresponding to the clinical presentation and care according to age ≥75 years were compared. Subsequently, logistic regression models were performed with the objective of evaluating the effect of age ≥75 years on the outcome variables. RESULTS: A total of 541 (81.5%) cases younger than 75 years were analysed compared to 123 adult patients (18.5%) of ≥75 years or more. In the group of long-lived it was observed significantly greater probability of dependence, co-morbidity, polypharmacy, a previous visit to the hospital emergency department, arrived by ambulance, first seizures and a symptomatic aetiopathogenic classification. In the multivariate analysis, after adjusting for the above variables, it is observed that age >75 years is associated independently with a higher incidence of specific supplementary tests (OR: 2.31; 95% CI: 1.21-4.44), but not pharmacological intervention (OR: 1.63; 95% CI: 0.96-2.80), or hospitalisation or extended stay in emergency departments (OR: 1.56; 95% CI: 0.94-2.59). On adjusting for all previous variables, age >75 years is associated with lower incidence of adverse events at 30 days (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.25-0.77). CONCLUSIONS: In the ACESUR Registry, differences in clinical presentation and in the care of patients with seizures in emergency departments were identified when comparing those patients >75 years with those <75 years. Age ≥75 years is not independently associated with a higher incidence of intervention in emergency departments, or with more adverse outcomes at 30 days after discharge.

Differences in emergency department care of adults with a first epileptic seizure versus a recurrent seizure: a study of the ACESUR (Acute Epileptic Seizures in the Emergency Department) registr. / Registro ACESUR: atención de pacientes adultos con crisis epilépticas en servicios de urgencias: diferencias entre primer episodio y recurrencia.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the characteristics of care received by patients who come to the emergency department with a first epileptic seizure versus a recurrent seizure in a patient with diagnosed epileps. MATERIAL AND METHODS: ACESUR (Acute Epileptic Seizures in the Emergency Department) is a prospective multicenter, multipurpose registry of cases obtained by systematic sampling on even days in February and July 2017 and on odd days in April and October 2017. Patients were aged 18 years or older and had an emergency department diagnosis of epileptic seizure. We recorded clinical variables and details related to care given during each patient's visit, including whether the event was a first or recurrent seizure. RESULTS: A total of 664 patients attended by 18 Spanish emergency departments were entered into the ACESUR registry. Two hundred twenty-nine (34.5%) were first seizures and 435 (65.5%) were recurrences. Patients who were attended for first seizures were older, consulted for a wider variety of reasons, and were transported in ambulances (P<.001, all comparisons). Care received differed between patients with first seizures versus recurrent seizures. Specific complementary testing was more likely in patients with first seizures (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 13.94; 95% CI, 29-26.7; P<.001), and they were more often hospitalized or stayed longer in the emergency department, (aOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.11-2.58; P=.015). Pharmacologic treatment did not differ between the groups, either in the acute phase or for prevention (aOR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.94-2.09; P=.096). Antiepileptic drugs were given to 100 patients (43.7%) after a first seizure and were restarted or changed in 142 patients with recurrent seizure (32.6%). CONCLUSION: The clinical characteristics of adults attended for a first epileptic seizure differ from those of patients with diagnosed epilepsy who were attended for recurrent seizures in Spain. The care received also differs.

OBJETIVO: Describir las características y la atención recibida de pacientes adultos que consultan por crisis epiléptica (CE) en los servicios de urgencias hospitalarios (SUH), diferenciando entre primera crisis y recurrencia en epiléptico conocido. METODO: ACESUR es un registro observacional de cohortes multipropósito, prospectivo y multicéntrico con un muestreo sistemático, los días pares de febrero y julio alternando con los impares de abril y octubre de 2017. Se incluyeron pacientes 18 años con diagnóstico de CE en los SUH. Se recogieron variables clínico-asistenciales de la visita índice de pacientes, distinguiendo entre primera CE y recurrencia en epiléptico. RESULTADOS: El registro ACESUR recogió a 664 pacientes procedentes de 18 SUH españoles, 229 (34,5%) con primera CE y 435 (65,5%) con CE recurrentes. Los pacientes con primera CE fueron de mayor edad (p < 0,001), presentaron motivos de consulta distintos (p < 0,001) y requirieron más traslados en ambulancia (p < 0,001). La atención recibida en el SUH fue diferente, en pacientes con primera CE se solicitó con mayor probabilidad una prueba complementaria específica (OR ajustada = 13,94; IC95%:7,29-26,7; p < 0,001) y se necesitó mayor hospitalización o estancia prolongada en el SUH (OR ajustada = 1,69; IC95%:1,11-2,58; p = 0,015). No hubo diferencias en cuanto al tratamiento farmacológico en fase aguda ni preventivo (OR ajustada = 1,40; IC95%:0,94-2,09; p = 0,096). Se inició tratamiento con fármacos antiepiépticos (FAE) en 100 pacientes (43,7%) tras primera CE y se reinició o modificó añadiendo nuevo FAE en 142 pacientes (32,6%) con CE recurrentes. CONCLUSIONES: Las características clínicas y la atención recibida de pacientes adultos con primera CE en SUH en España difieren de las recurrencias en epiléptico conocido.