The Impact of Clinical Seizure Characteristics on Recognition and Treatment of New-onset Focal Epilepsy in Emergency Departments
- PMID: 32810323
- DOI: 10.1111/acem.14114
The Impact of Clinical Seizure Characteristics on Recognition and Treatment of New-onset Focal Epilepsy in Emergency Departments
Abstract
Objective: Many people with new-onset focal epilepsy initially seek evaluation in emergency departments (EDs), and treatment decisions in EDs can influence likelihood of seizure recurrence. Using data collected for the Human Epilepsy Project (HEP), we assessed the effect of clinical seizure characteristics on ED clinical management.
Methods: There were 447 participants with new-onset focal epilepsy seen within 4 months of treatment initiation who were eligible and enrolled in HEP. Seizure calendars and medical records were collected. Based on clinical descriptions, seizures were categorized by semiology according to International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) classifications as either focal nonmotor or focal motor seizures.
Results: Overall, 279 of 447(62%) of participants had presented to an ED prior to or at time of epilepsy diagnosis. A total of 132 of 246 (53%) with initial nonmotor seizures presented to an ED. Of these, eight (6%) presented with a first-lifetime nonmotor seizure. The other 124 (94%) presented after multiple seizures: seven (5%) with multiple nonmotor seizures and 117 (89%) with a first-lifetime motor seizure after having prior nonmotor seizures. A total of 147 of 201 (73%) participants with initial motor seizures presented to an ED. Of these, 134 (92%) presented with a first-lifetime motor seizure and 13 (9%) with multiple motor seizures. There was no difference in the likelihood of antiseizure medication initiation between participants who had multiple prior nonmotor seizures followed by a motor seizure (thereby fulfilling the criterion for an epilepsy diagnosis) versus those presenting with a single lifetime motor seizure (39% vs. 43%). There was no difference in recognition of seizures as the presenting complaint (85% vs. 87%) or whether the participant was admitted or referred to a neurologist (87% vs. 79%).
Conclusions: This study contributes to evidence of underrecognition of nonmotor focal seizure semiologies in ED settings, which can support large-scale interventions aimed at improving recognition, specialist consultation, and treatment in ED settings.
© 2020 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.
Comment in
-
Missed Opportunities in New-onset Seizures in the Emergency Department.Acad Emerg Med. 2021 Apr;28(4):477-479. doi: 10.1111/acem.14173. Epub 2020 Dec 4. Acad Emerg Med. 2021. PMID: 33184915 No abstract available.
References
-
- Fisher RS. Commentary: operational definition of epilepsy survey. Epilepsia 2014;55:1688.
-
- Grinspan ZM, Shapiro JS, Abramson EL, Hooker G, Kaushal R, Kern LM. Predicting frequent ED use by people with epilepsy with health information exchange data. Neurology 2015;85:1031-1038.
-
- GBD 2017 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 2018;392:1789-1858.
-
- Ngugi AK, Bottomley C, Kleinschmidt I, Sander JW, Newton CR. Estimation of the burden of active and life-time epilepsy: a meta-analytic approach. Epilepsia 2010;51:883-890.
-
- Shorvon SD, Goodridge DM. Longitudinal cohort studies of the prognosis of epilepsy: contribution of the National General Practice Study of Epilepsy and other studies. Brain 2013;136:3497-3510.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Medical