Over- and underreporting of seizures: How big is the problem?

OBJECTIVE: Clinical decisions on managing epilepsy patients rely on patient accuracy regarding seizure reporting. Studies have noted disparities between patient-reported seizures and electroencephalographic (EEG) findings during video-EEG monitoring periods, chiefly highlighting underreporting of seizures, a well-recognized phenomenon. However, seizure overreporting is a significant problem discussed within the literature, although not in such a large cohort. Our aim is to quantify the over- and underreporting of seizures in a large cohort of ambulatory EEG patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective data analysis on 3407 patients referred to a diagnostic service for ambulatory video-EEG between 2020 and 2022. Both patient-reported events and events discovered on review of the video-EEG were analyzed and classified as epileptic, psychogenic (typically clinical motor events, without accompanying EEG change), or noncorrelated events (NCEs; without perceivable clinical or EEG change). Events were analyzed by state of arousal and indication for referral. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients with focal and generalized epilepsies. RESULTS: A total of 21 024 events were recorded by 3407 patients. Fifty-eight percent of reported events were NCEs, whereas 27% of all events were epileptic. Sixty-four percent of epileptic seizures were not reported by the patient but discovered by the clinical service on review of the recording. NCEs were in the highest proportion in the awake and drowsy arousal states and were the most common event type for the majority of referral indications. Subgroup analysis found a significantly higher proportion of NCEs in the patients with focal epilepsy (23%) compared to generalized epilepsy (10%; p < .001, chi-squared proportion test). SIGNIFICANCE: Our results reaffirm the phenomenon of underreporting and highlight the prevalence of overreporting. Overreporting likely represents irrelevant symptoms or electrographic discharges not represented on scalp electrodes, identification of which has important clinical relevance. Future studies should analyze events by risk factors to elucidate relationships clinicians can use and investigate the etiology of NCEs.

Ambulatory video EEG extended to 10 days: A retrospective review of a large database of ictal events.

OBJECTIVE: This work aims to determine the ambulatory video electroencephalography monitoring (AVEM) duration and number of captured seizures required to resolve different clinical questions, using a retrospective review of ictal recordings. METHODS: Patients who underwent home-based AVEM had event data analyzed retrospectively. Studies were grouped by clinical indication: differential diagnosis, seizure type classification, or treatment assessment. The proportion of studies where the conclusion was changed after the first seizure was determined, as was the AVEM duration needed for at least 99% of studies to reach a diagnostic conclusion. RESULTS: The referring clinical question was not answered entirely by the first event in 29.6% (n = 227) of studies. Diagnostic and classification indications required a minimum of 7 days for at least 99% of studies to be answered, whilst treatment-assessment required at least 6 days. CONCLUSIONS: At least 7 days of monitoring, and potentially multiple events, are required to adequately answer these clinical questions in at least 99% of patients. The widely applied 72 h or single event recording cut-offs may be inadequate to adequately answer these three indications in a substantial proportion of patients. SIGNIFICANCE: Extended duration of monitoring and capturing multiple events should be considered when attempting to capture seizures on video-EEG.

Rates of event capture of home video EEG.

OBJECTIVE: Recording electrographic and behavioral information during epileptic and other paroxysmal events is important during video electroencephalography (EEG) monitoring. This study was undertaken to measure the event capture rate of an home service operating across Australia using a shoulder-worn EEG device and telescopic pole-mounted camera. METHODS: Neurologist reports were accessed retrospectively. Studies with confirmed events were identified and assessed for event capture by recording modality, whether events were reported or discovered, and physiological state. RESULTS: 6,265 studies were identified, of which 2,788 (44.50%) had events. A total of 15,691 events were captured, of which 77.89% were reported. The EEG amplifier was active for 99.83% of events. The patient was in view of the camera for 94.90% of events. 84.89% of studies had all events on camera, and 2.65% had zero events on camera (mean = 93.66%, median = 100.00%). 84.42% of events from wakefulness were reported, compared to 54.27% from sleep. CONCLUSIONS: Event capture was similar to previously reported rates from home studies, with higher capture rates on video. Most patients have all events captured on camera. SIGNIFICANCE: Home monitoring is capable of high rates of event capture, and the use of wide-angle cameras allows for all events to be captured in the majority of studies.