Volume 45, Issue 8 pp. 928-932

Evaluating the Utility of Inpatient Video-EEG Monitoring

Daniel F. Ghougassian

Daniel F. Ghougassian

The Epilepsy Program of the Alfred Hospital, The Department of Clinical Neurosciences, St. Vincent's Hospital Melbourne

Search for more papers by this author
Wendyl D'Souza

Wendyl D'Souza

The Epilepsy Program of the Alfred Hospital, The Department of Clinical Neurosciences, St. Vincent's Hospital Melbourne

The Department of Medicine, The Royal Melbourne Hospital

Search for more papers by this author
Mark J. Cook

Mark J. Cook

The Department of Medicine, The Royal Melbourne Hospital

Search for more papers by this author
Terence J. O'Brien

Terence J. O'Brien

The Epilepsy Program of the Alfred Hospital, The Department of Clinical Neurosciences, St. Vincent's Hospital Melbourne

The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 21 July 2004
Citations: 158
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. D. Ghougassian at Comprehensive Epilepsy Service, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Summary: Purpose: Inpatient video-EEG monitoring (VEM) is widely used for the diagnosis, seizure classification, and presurgical evaluation of patients with seizure disorders. It is resource intensive and relatively expensive, so its utility continues to be debated. Few studies have specifically evaluated the utility of inpatient VEM in altering diagnosis or management of patients with seizure disorders. We sought to assess the proportion of patients for whom the preadmission diagnosis and management were altered after inpatient VEM of patients admitted for diagnostic and presurgical evaluation of seizure disorders.

Methods: Data from a consecutive cohort of patients admitted over a 3-year period to an inpatient VEM unit in a tertiary referral hospital were retrospectively analyzed. The preadmission diagnosis and management by the referring neurologist was compared with the diagnosis and management after the VEM.

Results: Of 131 patients, 91 (70%) were admitted for diagnostic evaluation and 39 (30%) for a presurgical workup. Mean evaluative period was 5.6 days. Mean number of seizures recorded was 2.9. No seizures were recorded in 31% of patients. Interictal EEG showed epileptiform changes in 56 (43%). In 76 (58%), the diagnosis was altered as a result of the VEM, with the greatest change being an increase in the nonepileptic diagnosis group (7% to 31%) and the generalized diagnosis group (5% to 11%). Management was changed after the VEM in 95 (73%).

Conclusions: The results of this study demonstrate that inpatient VEM has a high yield in changing diagnosis and management. Future long-term cost–benefit studies of the management changes resulting from VEM evaluation will aid in further reinforcing its role.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.

click me