Experiences with premorbid SUDEP discussion among participants in the North American SUDEP Registry (NASR)

The application of SUDEP in forensic diagnosis: a mini review

In the epilepsy population, the risk of sudden death from epilepsy is rare but is ~24 times greater than the risk of sudden death from other causes. Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) has been widely recognized in clinical studies. Despite its significance as a cause of death, SUDEP is rarely used in forensic practice. This review focuses on the forensic characteristics of SUDEP, analyzed the reasons for its underuse in forensic practice, and illustrated the prospect of establishing uniform diagnostic criteria for sudden unexpected death in epilepsy and molecular anatomy in aiding forensic diagnosis.

Reducing Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy: Considering Risk Factors, Pathophysiology and Strategies

Purpose of Review

Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) is the commonest cause of epilepsy-related premature mortality in people with chronic epilepsy. It is the most devastating epilepsy outcome. We describe and discuss risk factors and possible pathophysiological mechanisms to elucidate possible preventative strategies to avert SUDEP.

Recent Findings

Sudden death accounts for a significant proportion of premature mortality in people with epilepsy compared to the general population. Unmodifiable risk factors include a history of neurologic insult, younger age of seizure-onset, longer epilepsy duration, a history of convulsions, symptomatic epilepsy, intellectual disability, and non-ambulatory status. Modifiable risk factors include the presence of convulsive seizures, increased seizure frequency, timely and appropriate use of antiseizure medications, polytherapy, alcoholism, and supervision while sleeping. Pathophysiology is unclear, but several possible mechanisms such as direct alteration of cardiorespiratory function, pulmonary impairment, electrocerebral shutdown, adenosine dysfunction, and genetic susceptibility suggested.

Summary

Methods to prevent SUDEP include increasing awareness of SUDEP, augmenting knowledge of unmodifiable risk factors, obtaining full seizure remission, addressing lifestyle factors such as supervision and prone positioning, and enacting protocols to increase the detection of and intervention for SUDEP. Further studies are required to characterize precisely and comprehensively SUDEP risk factors and pathophysiological drivers and develop evidence-based algorithms to minimize SUDEP in people with epilepsy.

Using an animated video to promote an informed discussion on SUDEP with adolescents

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to create and test an animated video to teach adolescent patients about Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP).

METHOD

Thirty-nine patients and thirteen parents watched the SUDEP video and completed at least one survey. Patients with epilepsy aged 14+ and their parents were recruited to watch the video during neurology clinic visits. Parents of minors provided verbal permission for their child to view the video. Participants were asked to complete pre- and post-video surveys. Data analysis included Fischer's exact tests for comparative data and percentages for categorical variables.

RESULTS

After watching the SUDEP video, 100% of parents and patients agreed that the video provided helpful knowledge, and 100% of parents and 96% of patients agreed that patients with epilepsy should know about SUDEP. Half of the parents surveyed, and 20% of patients, felt increased concerns after watching the video. Patients rated their understanding of SUDEP significantly higher after watching the video (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Participants in this study thought that it was important for patients with epilepsy to know about SUDEP, and all agreed that the animated SUDEP video provided helpful knowledge. While some parents endorsed increased concerns after watching the video, the majority of parents still agreed to allow their child to watch the video. Adolescent education on SUDEP using a family-centered approach may be an important method of encouraging harm-reducing behaviors that can be lifesaving for patients with epilepsy. The standard of practice for SUDEP disclosure should continue to be face-to-face discussion with providers, and we propose this video as a tool to elevate and inform those discussions.

[SUDEP in brief - knowledge and practice recommendations on sudden unexpected death in epilepsy]

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is the sudden and unexpected death of an epilepsy patient, which occurs under benign circumstances without evidence of typical causes of death. SUDEP concerns all epilepsy patients. The individual risk depends on the characteristics of the epilepsy and seizures as well as on living conditions. Focal to bilateral and generalized tonic-clonic seizures (TCS), nocturnal seizures and lack of nocturnal supervision increase the risk. Most SUDEP cases are due to a fatal cascade of apnea, hypoxemia and asystole in the aftermath of a TCS. Two thirds of SUDEP cases in unsupervised epilepsy patients with TCS could probably be prevented. Wearables can detect TCS and alert caregivers. SUDEP information is desired by most patients and relatives, has a favorable impact on treatment adherence and behavior and has no negative effects on mood and quality of life.Recommendations of the committee on patient safety of the German Society of Epileptology: the ultimate treatment goal is seizure freedom. If this cannot be achieved, control of TCS should be sought. All epilepsy patients and their relatives should be informed about SUDEP and risk factors. Patients and relatives should be informed about measures to counteract the elevated risk and imminent SUDEP. The counselling should be performed during a face-to-face discussion, at the time of first diagnosis or during follow-up visits. The counselling should be documented. Wearables for TCS detection can be recommended. If TCS persist, therapeutic efforts should be continued. The bereaved should be contacted after a SUDEP.

SUDEP education among U.S. and international neurology trainees

We evaluated baseline sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) knowledge and counseling practices among national and international adult neurology trainees with a 12-question online survey. The survey was emailed to all 169 U.S. neurology residency program directors and select international neurology/epilepsy program leaders. Program leaders were asked to distribute the survey link to adult neurology trainees. There were 161 respondents in the U.S. and 171 respondents outside the U.S. The latter were from 25 Latin American, European, Asian, and African countries. More than 90% of all trainees reported familiarity with SUDEP definition. Familiarity with SUDEP risk factors and mitigation measures ranged from 56% to 67% across these groups, with international trainees slightly more familiar with risk factors (67% vs. 61% in U.S.) but less familiar with mitigation measures (56% vs. 63% in U.S.). Approximately half of national (49%) and international (54%) trainees rarely or never counseled patients on SUDEP. Less than half of national (44%) and international (41%) trainees were educated about SUDEP. Many U.S. and adult neurology trainees remain unfamiliar with SUDEP risk factors and mitigation measures. Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy counseling falls below recommended standards. We suggest that worldwide neurology training programs' leaderships consider improving SUDEP education targeted at adult neurology trainees.

Predictors of SUDEP counseling and implications for designing interventions

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to describe how often and why clinicians counsel people with epilepsy about sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP). Understanding counseling gaps can help design interventions.

METHODS

We searched clinical notes of 77,924 patients from 2010 to 2014 from six hospitals to find examples of SUDEP counseling and seizure safety counseling. Visits were coded for patient, clinician, and visit factors, and documented reasons for counseling. We evaluated factors associated with SUDEP vs. seizure safety counseling, and reasons for counseling using bivariate and multivariable statistics. Reasons for counseling included: poor medication adherence, lifestyle factors (e.g., poor sleep, drinking alcohol), patient/family reluctance to make recommended medication adjustment, epilepsy surgery considerations, and patient education only.

RESULTS

Analysis was restricted to two of six hospitals where 91% of counseling occurred. Documentation of SUDEP counseling was rare (332 of 33,821 patients, 1.0%), almost exclusively by epileptologists (98.5% of counseling), and stable over time, X² (4, n = 996) = 3.81, p = 0.43. Adult neurologists were more likely to document SUDEP counseling than pediatric (OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.12-2.44). Most SUDEP counseling was documented with a goal of seizure reduction (214 of 332, 64.5%), though some was for patient education only (118 of 332, 35.5%). By the time SUDEP counseling was documented, the majority of patients had refractory epilepsy (187 of 332, 56.3%) and/or a potentially modifiable risk factor (214 of 332, 64.5%). Neurologists with more years of clinical experience (OR = 2.18, 95% CI = 1.12-4.25) and more senior academic titles (OR = 2.25, 95% CI = 1.27-3.99) were more likely to document SUDEP counseling for patient education only. People with ≥2 anti-seizure medications (ASM) were more likely to receive counseling for patient education (OR = 2.72, 95% CI = 1.49-4.97).

CONCLUSIONS

Documentation of SUDEP is rare, and varies by clinician, hospital, and patient factors. Efforts to increase SUDEP counseling should focus on junior clinicians, and emphasize starting the conversation soon after onset of epilepsy.

Epilepsy: Workup and Management in Adults

When managing epilepsy, there is a temptation to focus care with respect to the last and the next seizure. However, epilepsy is a multifaceted chronic condition and should be treated as such. Epilepsy comes with many physical risks, psychological effects, and socioeconomic ramifications, demanding a long-term commitment from the treating physician. Patients with epilepsy, compared to other chronically ill patient populations, have a worse quality of life, family function, and less social support. The majority of patients are well controlled on antiseizure drugs. However, approximately one-third will continue to have seizures despite optimized medical management. The primary aim of this article is to explore the long-term management of chronic epilepsy, and to address some of the particular needs of patients with chronic epilepsy.

SUDEP classification: Discordances between forensic investigators and epileptologists

We compared sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) diagnosis rates between North American SUDEP Registry (NASR) epileptologists and original death investigators, to determine degree and causes of discordance. In 220 SUDEP cases with post-mortem examination, we recorded the epileptologist adjudications and medical examiner- and coroner- (ME/C) listed causes of death (CODs). COD diagnosis concordance decreased with NASR's uncertainty in the SUDEP diagnosis: highest for Definite SUDEP (84%, n = 158), lower in Definite Plus (50%, n = 36), and lowest in Possible (0%, n = 18). Rates of psychiatric comorbidity, substance abuse, and toxicology findings for drugs of abuse were all higher in discordant cases than concordant cases. Possible SUDEP cases, an understudied group, were significantly older, and had higher rates of cardiac, drug, or toxicology findings than more certain SUDEP cases. With a potentially contributing or competing COD, ME/Cs favored non-epilepsy-related diagnoses, suggesting a bias toward listing CODs with structural or toxicological findings; SUDEP has no pathognomonic features. A history of epilepsy should always be listed on death certificates and autopsy reports. Even without an alternate COD, ME/Cs infrequently classified COD as "SUDEP." Improved collaboration and communication between epilepsy and ME/C communities improve diagnostic accuracy, as well as bereavement and research opportunities.

Awareness of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy among parents of children with epilepsy in a tertiary center

OBJECTIVE

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is the second leading neurological cause of potential years of lifelost after stroke. Despite growing numbers of studies on social aspects of epilepsy, there is a paucity of research on the awareness of SUDEP among the parents of children with epilepsy (CWE), especially in Turkey. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the knowledge of parents of the CWE regarding SUDEP in the tertiary setting.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 146 parents (108 female) aged 19 to 55 years (median age:34) of CWE were included at Marmara University, School of Medicine, Department of Pediatric Neurology outpatient clinic between May 2018 and September 2018. A total of 30 multiple-choice questions and a written survey were administered, which consisted of three sections. In the first section, the sociodemographics of parents and CWE were questioned. In the second section, the severity of epilepsy was evaluated. In the third section, the knowledge level and awareness of parents of CWE were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 146 parents, only 16.6% previously heard about SUDEP, while 45% of them heard from their relatives. The presence of prior knowledge of SUDEP was associated with the presence of prolonged postictal confusion and longer duration of epilepsy (p < 0.05). Ninety-seven (66%) parents desired to be informed about SUDEP, while 76 (54.7%) of them agreed that this information should be given at the time of diagnosis. The degree of anxiety in parents regarding death of epilepsy-related causes was significantly related with prolonged postictal confusion (p < 0.001) and using three or more antiepileptic drugs (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that knowledge about SUDEP among parents with CWE found inadequate in Turkey. There should be much effort to inform parents and caregivers in epilepsy clinics on SUDEP, which may help to reduce the associated risk factors.

Incorporating Ethically Relevant Empirical Data From Systematic Review of Reasons: A Case Study of Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy

In this report we use a case study of risk of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) to illustrate the contribution of systematic literature reviews of disease-specific ethical issues (DSEI). In particular, we show how ethically-relevant empirical data from such reviews can be used in the examination of the reasons for and against a particular normative approach to our DSEI. That is, we have attempted to offer a normative recommendation in response to the question of whether or not the risk of SUDEP should be disclosed to all patients. This case study functions as a form of empirical bioethics by providing a means of assessing empirical claims underlying reasons. As a result of this process, we are then able to provide clear and transparent, if not definitive, justification for a normative recommendation in response to a question of interest.

Keep safe: The when, why and how of epilepsy risk communication

PURPOSE

Risk communication between clinicians and people with epilepsy (PWE) and their families is under researched. There is limited guidance about when and how to have these discussions. This paper explores the current evidence on quality of risk related conversations in epilepsy and suggests a concept of an evidence-based guideline for person centred structured risk communication.

METHODS

A literature search of four electronic database, Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, PUBMED, and CINAHL, was conducted by two independent reviewers using relevant search terms following the principals of the PRISMA guidance. No limits were applied. Supplementary searches included using backwards and forwards citation searching. A predesigned inclusion and exclusion criteria was administered to the identified results.

RESULTS

From 376 results identified, 17 studies met the final criteria of which ten were quantitative, five qualitative and two mixed methods. Perspectives of PWE and clinicians were represented. Extracted data was clustered into three domains: communication initiation (e.g. timing, individual tailoring); communication methods (preference for face to face with neurologists); and communication content (acknowledging the anxiety produced by risk communication, the benefits of being self-aware, normalising risk etc.). No papers focused on conversation structure (e.g. helpful phrases), or the best locations to hold conversations.

CONCLUSION

More research is needed to develop structured communication of risk. An attempt has been made to put current evidence into this format. Clearer guidance will enhance clinicians' confidence in communicating person centred epilepsy risk with PWE and their families thus improving outcomes.

SUDEP and mortality in epilepsy: The role of routinely collected healthcare data, registries, and health inequalities

Routinely collected data are a powerful research resource and offer the opportunity to further our understanding of epilepsy mortality and Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP). The advantages of using routinely collected data include that it often covers whole populations, is already collected, and can be easily linked to other data sources. A significant disadvantage is the difficulty in obtaining accurate causes of death and correctly identifying cases of SUDEP. Using and linking data from epilepsy death registries can improve the quality of mortality data for research. Epilepsy prevalence, incidence, and mortality rates are associated with socioeconomic deprivation. Further research into understanding the link between deprivation and epilepsy mortality could lead to ways to reduce epilepsy mortality. This paper is for the Special Issue :Prevent 21: SUDEP Summit - Time to Listen.

Counseling and Management of the Risks of Living With Epilepsy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

For patients living with epilepsy, quality of life is determined not only by seizure control but by mood, antiepileptic drug adverse effects, relationships, and access to education, employment, and transportation. This article reviews some of the most commonly encountered concerns associated with epilepsy, including mood disorders, driving, injuries, mortality, bone health, genetic burden, and impact on relationships.

RECENT FINDINGS

People with epilepsy are at increased risk for anxiety, depression, and suicide. Depression is underrecognized in patients with epilepsy, but effective validated screening tools are available for use. Mortality rates for people with epilepsy are 2 times higher than those of the general population, but much of this is attributable to underlying conditions rather than seizures. Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) occurs in an estimated 1:1000 adults with epilepsy per year, and the risk can be reduced by improved observation and seizure control. An increased risk of injury, including fractures, is also present in patients with epilepsy. Reduced bone health leading to increased fracture risk is an important negative consequence of long-term use of antiepileptic medication. Seizures while driving can also cause accidents and injury. Despite the importance of driving for people with epilepsy, physicians are underperforming in providing counsel about driving.

SUMMARY

Optimal care of the patient with epilepsy includes addressing risks to emotional health, physical health including fractures and SUDEP, social health, and an independent lifestyle. Identification of and treatments to reduce these risks can do more to improve quality of life than a narrow clinical focus on seizure control alone.

Why we urgently need improved epilepsy therapies for adult patients

PURPOSE

Up to a third of patients with epilepsy suffer from recurrent seizures despite therapeutic advances.

RESULTS

Current epilepsy treatments are limited by experiential data from treating different types of epilepsy. For example, we lack evidence-based approaches to efficacious multi-drug therapies or identifying potentially serious or disabling adverse events before medications are initiated. Despite advances in neuroscience and genetics, our understanding of epilepsy pathogenesis and mechanisms of treatment-resistance remains limited. For most patients with epilepsy, precision medicine for improved seizure control and reduced toxicity remains a future goal.

CONCLUSION

A third of epilepsy patients suffer from ongoing seizures and even more suffer from adverse effects of treatment. There is a critical need for more effective and safer therapies for epilepsy patients with frequent comorbitidies, including depression, anxiety, migraine, and cognitive impairments, as well as special populations (e.g., women, elderly). Advances from genomic sequencing techniques may identify new genes and regulatory elements that influence both the depth of the epilepsies' roots within brain circuitry as well as ASD resistance. Improved understanding of epilepsy mechanisms, identification of potential new therapeutic targets, and their assessment in randomized controlled trials are needed to reduce the burden of refractory epilepsy. This article is part of the special issue entitled 'New Epilepsy Therapies for the 21st Century - From Antiseizure Drugs to Prevention, Modification and Cure of Epilepsy'.

Let's talk SUDEP

Sudden unexplained death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is a devastating complication of epilepsy which was under-recognized in the recent past despite its clear importance. In this review, we examine the definition of SUDEP, revise current pathophysiological theories, discuss risk factors and preventative measures, disclose tools for appraising the SUDEP risk, and last but not least dwell upon announcing and explaining the SUDEP risk to the patients and their caretakers. We aim to aid the clinicians in their responsibility of knowing SUDEP, explaining the SUDEP risk to their patients in a reasonable and sensible way and whenever possible, preventing SUDEP. Future studies are definitely needed to increase scientific knowledge and awareness related to this prioritized topic with malign consequences.

SUDEP in the North American SUDEP Registry: The full spectrum of epilepsies

Objective

To obtain medical records, family interviews, and death-related reports of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) cases to better understand SUDEP.

Methods

All cases referred to the North American SUDEP Registry (NASR) between October 2011 and June 2018 were reviewed; cause of death was determined by consensus review. Available medical records, death scene investigation reports, autopsy reports, and next-of-kin interviews were reviewed for all cases of SUDEP. Seizure type, EEG, MRI, and SUDEP classification were adjudicated by 2 epileptologists.

Results

There were 237 definite and probable cases of SUDEP among 530 NASR participants. SUDEP decedents had a median age of 26 (range 1–70) years at death, and 38% were female. In 143 with sufficient information, 40% had generalized and 60% had focal epilepsy. SUDEP affected the full spectrum of epilepsies, from benign epilepsy with centrotemporal spikes (n = 3, 1%) to intractable epileptic encephalopathies (n = 27, 11%). Most (93%) SUDEPs were unwitnessed; 70% occurred during apparent sleep; and 69% of patients were prone. Only 37% of cases of SUDEP took their last dose of antiseizure medications (ASMs). Reported lifetime generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS) were <10 in 33% and 0 in 4%.

Conclusions

NASR participants commonly have clinical features that have been previously been associated with SUDEP risk such as young adult age, ASM nonadherence, and frequent GTCS. However, a sizeable minority of SUDEP occurred in patients thought to be treatment responsive or to have benign epilepsies. These results emphasize the importance of SUDEP education across the spectrum of epilepsy severities. We aim to make NASR data and biospecimens available for researchers to advance SUDEP understanding and prevention.

Qualitative insights into the feelings, knowledge, and impact of SUDEP: A narrative synthesis

People with epilepsy (PWE) have a two- to threefold increased chance of premature death due to the condition. Interested in exploring the first-person perspective on this topic, we conducted a narrative synthesis to present the qualitative insight of PWE, their family, friends, and healthcare providers (HCPs) in relation to epilepsy-related death. A comprehensive electronic search of all peer-reviewed qualitative studies was conducted through databases using relevant keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms. Handsearching and exploration of pertinent gray literature was conducted thereafter. After a comprehensive literature search, the decisions of inclusion of literature were discussed and confirmed between the two authors. A total of 20 peer-reviewed papers were included. Within this, 17 were qualitative or mixed methods studies, and three were gray literature and guidelines/recommendations in discussing sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) with PWE and their families. The resultant main categories were the following: a) understanding of SUDEP and b) discussion of SUDEP. Findings show that there is an overall lack of understanding of unexpected epilepsy-related death for PWE and their relations. The literature focused on the education of PWE and their family in relation to SUDEP, and therefore, there is a lack of discussion on the general topic of epilepsy-related death. Findings show the conflicting perceptions, feelings, and thought processes that occur in learning about and deciding to discuss SUDEP as a HCP, PWE, or family/friend of a PWE. The literature suggests that it would be appropriate and necessary to discuss the topic of SUDEP with patients and their family members upon diagnosis.

Review: The past, present and future challenges in epilepsy-related and sudden deaths and biobanking

Awareness and research on epilepsy-related deaths (ERD), in particular Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP), have exponentially increased over the last two decades. Most publications have focused on guidelines that inform clinicians dealing with these deaths, educating patients, potential risk factors and mechanisms. There is a relative paucity of information available for pathologists who conduct these autopsies regarding appropriate post mortem practice and investigations. As we move from recognizing SUDEP as the most common form of ERD toward in-depth investigations into its causes and prevention, health professionals involved with these autopsies and post mortem procedure must remain fully informed. Systematizing a more comprehensive and consistent practice of examining these cases will facilitate (i) more precise determination of cause of death, (ii) identification of SUDEP for improved epidemiological surveillance (the first step for an intervention study), and (iii) biobanking and cell-based research. This article reviews how pathologists and healthcare professionals have approached ERD, current practices, logistical problems and areas to improve and harmonize. The main neuropathology, cardiac and genetic findings in SUDEP are outlined, providing a framework for best practices, integration of clinical, pathological and molecular genetic investigations in SUDEP, and ultimately prevention.

To reveal or conceal? Adult patient perspectives on SUDEP disclosure

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to evaluate adult patient or caregiver feelings and viewpoints about sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) awareness.

BACKGROUND

The decision to discuss SUDEP with patients and families has created much debate. Many healthcare providers (HCPs) are hesitant to discuss SUDEP because of the perception of evoking unnecessary fear in patients while others argue that informing patients about SUDEP may enhance patient compliance, improve seizure control, and aid in saving lives. This study quantifies patient viewpoints regarding their right to information, requirements of disclosure, and initial responses of fear and patient motivation toward behavioral change.

DESIGN/METHODS

This was a prospective random sample survey of adult patients with epilepsy or their caregivers. Every third eligible adult patient with epilepsy or caregiver was given a one-page SUDEP information sheet promoted by the Epilepsy Foundation of America. Participants were then asked if they were interested in completing an eight-item questionnaire assessing their perception of the information.

RESULTS

Ninety-four of ninety-six subjects completed the survey (98%). One hundred percent (n = 94) of responders felt they had a right to be informed about SUDEP, and 95% felt that their HCP should be required to inform them. Respondents also indicated that SUDEP awareness motivated them for better medication adherence (89%) and management of lifestyle factors that lower seizure threshold (88%). Thirty percent endorsed increased fear. However, 100% of those patients or caregivers who endorsed fear still felt it was their right to be informed. Patients who endorsed fear were also more likely to be interested in nonpharmacologic treatment options as a result of SUDEP disclosure.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and caregivers feel it is their right to be informed about SUDEP, irrespective of evoked fear. The vast majority of participants endorsed a requirement for HCPs to disclose related information. While some participants endorsed fear, most agreed that SUDEP awareness motivated them to better manage factors that trigger seizures. Patient education regarding SUDEP may play a key role in encouraging modifying lifestyle factors that lower seizure threshold and facilitate more aggressive interventions in patients with pharmacoresistant epilepsy.

Knowledge of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) among 372 patients attending a German tertiary epilepsy center

BACKGROUND

There is evidence that the sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) risk can be reduced by good seizure control, nocturnal supervision, and by early cardiopulmonary resuscitation if cardiorespiratory arrest occurs in the aftermaths of generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS). These measures, however, may critically depend on the knowledge of patients and relatives on SUDEP. Here, we assessed the basic knowledge on SUDEP of people with epilepsy at a tertiary epilepsy center in Germany.

METHODS

Adult patients with epilepsy and relatives or caregivers of patients with epilepsy aged 16years or older attending our outpatient clinic from January to March 2014 were given the opportunity to participate in a (assisted or unassisted) written survey. In the anonymized questionnaire, people were asked if they had already heard about SUDEP, by what means and if they wish to learn (more) about SUDEP. Furthermore, age, sex, epilepsy duration, highest degree of education, number of GTCS during the last year, and estimation of subjective impairment by their disease were assessed. Statistics were done using mixed linear or logistic regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 372 patients' questionnaires were included in this survey. More than 87% of the participants had never heard of SUDEP before. Whereas about 50% of the participants wanted to learn more about SUDEP, about 40% did not. Only the age at survey was significantly associated with both being informed and the desire of learning more about SUDEP: Younger patients had more often heard (p=0.022) and wanted to know more about SUDEP (p=0.020). Thirty-nine patients were considered at high risk for SUDEP. Of these, only 6 patients (15%) knew about SUDEP prior to this survey, but 18 patients (46%) wanted to learn more about this fatal complication.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that the level of information on SUDEP among people with epilepsy is poor in Germany regardless of sex, school education, or epilepsy severity. Additionally, a considerable proportion of people with epilepsy seems to prefer not getting detailed information on SUDEP. More efforts are required to understand the potential barriers of the education of patients and relatives on sudden death with the ultimate goal of decreasing the risk of SUDEP.