Incomplete resection of the intracranial electroencephalographic seizure onset zone is not associated with postsurgical outcomes.

Delineation of seizure onset regions using intracranial electroencephalography (icEEG) is vital in the surgical workup of drug-resistant epilepsy cases. However, it is unknown whether the complete resection of these regions is necessary for seizure freedom, or whether postsurgical seizure recurrence can be attributed to the incomplete removal of seizure onset regions. To address this gap, we retrospectively analyzed icEEG recordings from 63 subjects, identifying seizure onset regions visually and algorithmically. We assessed onset region resection and correlated this with postsurgical seizure control. The majority of subjects had more than half of their onset regions resected (82.46% and 80.65% of subjects using visual and algorithmic methods, respectively). There was no association between the proportion of the seizure onset zone (SOZ) that was subsequently resected and better surgical outcomes (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] < .7). Investigating the spatial extent of onset regions, we found no substantial evidence of an association with postsurgical seizure control (all AUC < .7). Although seizure onset regions are typically resected completely or in large part, incomplete resection is not associated with worse postsurgical outcomes. We conclude that postsurgical seizure recurrence cannot be attributed to an incomplete resection of the icEEG SOZ alone. Other network mechanisms beyond icEEG seizure onset likely contribute.

A library of quantitative markers of seizure severity.

OBJECTIVE: Understanding fluctuations in seizure severity within individuals is important for determining treatment outcomes and responses to therapy, as well as assessing novel treatments for epilepsy. Current methods for grading seizure severity rely on qualitative interpretations from patients and clinicians. Quantitative measures of seizure severity would complement existing approaches to electroencephalographic (EEG) monitoring, outcome monitoring, and seizure prediction. Therefore, we developed a library of quantitative EEG markers that assess the spread and intensity of abnormal electrical activity during and after seizures. METHODS: We analyzed intracranial EEG (iEEG) recordings of 1009 seizures from 63 patients. For each seizure, we computed 16 markers of seizure severity that capture the signal magnitude, spread, duration, and postictal suppression of seizures. RESULTS: Quantitative EEG markers of seizure severity distinguished focal versus subclinical seizures across patients. In individual patients, 53% had a moderate to large difference (rank sum r > .3 , p < .05 ) between focal and subclinical seizures in three or more markers. Circadian and longer term changes in severity were found for the majority of patients. SIGNIFICANCE: We demonstrate the feasibility of using quantitative iEEG markers to measure seizure severity. Our quantitative markers distinguish between seizure types and are therefore sensitive to established qualitative differences in seizure severity. Our results also suggest that seizure severity is modulated over different timescales. We envisage that our proposed seizure severity library will be expanded and updated in collaboration with the epilepsy research community to include more measures and modalities.