Evaluation of pediatric patients in new-onset seizure clinic (NOSc)

Predictors of Clinically Important Neuroimaging Findings in Children Presenting Pediatric Emergency Department

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study is to evaluate predictors of clinically important neuroimaging results, that is, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in children in an academic pediatric emergency department (PED) from 2015 to 2019.

METHODS

This study was conducted in an academic PED. The patient's demographic and clinical characteristics of PED visits and neuroimaging findings requested at the PED were recorded for January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019. In addition, descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses were conducted. We described and determined the predictors of clinically important neuroimaging findings in children.

RESULTS

Clinically important neuroimaging findings were detected in patients with blurred vision ( P = 0.001), ataxia ( P = 0.003), unilateral weakness ( P = 0.004), and altered level of consciousness ( P = 0.026). Clinically important neuroimaging was found 9.4 times higher in patients with altered level of consciousness, 7.4 times higher in patients with focal weakness, 4.6 times higher in patients with blurred vision, and 3.5 times more in patients presenting with ataxia.

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced neuroimaging, especially for selected patients in PED, can improve the quality of health care for patients. On the other hand, irrelevant neuroimaging findings can lead physicians away from prompt diagnosis and accurate management. According to our study, advanced neuroimaging can be performed in the early period for both diagnosis and early treatment, especially in selected patients with ataxia, blurred vision, altered consciousness, and unilateral weakness. In other cases, clinicians may find more supporting evidence.

Clinical characteristics and diagnoses of 1213 children referred to a first seizure clinic

OBJECTIVE

New-onset seizure-like events (SLEs) are common in children, but differentiating between epilepsy and its mimics is challenging. This study provides an overview of the clinical characteristics, diagnoses, and corresponding etiologies of children evaluated at a first seizure clinic (FSC), which will be helpful for all physicians involved in the care of children with SLEs.

METHODS

We included 1213 children who were referred to the FSC of a Dutch tertiary children's hospital over a 13-year period and described their clinical characteristics, first routine EEG recording results, and the distribution and specification of their eventual epilepsy and non-epilepsy diagnoses. The time interval to correct diagnosis and the diagnostic accuracy of the FSC were evaluated.

RESULTS

"Epilepsy" was eventually diagnosed in 407 children (33.5%), "no epilepsy" in 737 (60.8%), and the diagnosis remained "unclear" in 69 (5.7%). Epileptiform abnormalities were seen in 60.9% of the EEG recordings in the "epilepsy" group, and in 5.7% and 11.6% of the "no epilepsy" and "unclear" group, respectively. Of all children with final "epilepsy" and "no epilepsy" diagnoses, 68.6% already received their diagnosis at FSC consultation, and 2.9% of the children were initially misdiagnosed. The mean time to final diagnosis was 2.0 months, and 91.3% of all children received their final diagnosis within 12 months after the FSC consultation.

SIGNIFICANCE

We describe the largest pediatric FSC cohort to date, which can serve as a clinical frame of reference. The experience and expertise built at FSCs will improve and accelerate diagnosis in children with SLEs.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Many children experience events that resemble but not necessarily are seizures. Distinguishing between seizures and seizure mimics is important but challenging. Specialized first-seizure clinics can help with this. Here, we report data from 1213 children who were referred to the first seizure clinic of a Dutch children's hospital. One-third of them were diagnosed with epilepsy. In 68.8% of all children-with and without epilepsy-the diagnosis was made during the first consultation. Less than 3% were misdiagnosed. This study may help physicians in what to expect regarding the diagnoses in children who present with events that resemble seizures.

Pediatric syncope: pearls and pitfalls in history taking

Syncope is a heterogeneous syndrome with complex underlying mechanisms, hence, the spectrum of patients presenting with syncope is broad. The diagnosis of syncope begins with history taking, and an accurate diagnosis can be established through correct history taking and interpretation. Building and interpreting patient history are the main factors that cause a diagnostic yield gap between experts and nonexperts. The most frequent source of error is a clinician's misconception rather than an inaccurate account of patient symptoms. Clinicians can have several diagnostic pitfalls while evaluating patient history, which can be avoided by in-depth understanding of the link between syncope pathophysiology and clinical clues. Furthermore, clinicians need to understand the clinical features of diseases that require differentiation from syncope, such as seizures. The use of confusing terms is one of the barriers that prevents accurate diagnosis and communication between doctors and patients. In this review, we address the terms of syncope and its essential history-taking components in connection with the mechanism of syncope.

Prognosis of adults and children following a first unprovoked seizure

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is clinically defined as two or more unprovoked epileptic seizures more than 24 hours apart. Given that, a diagnosis of epilepsy can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality, it is imperative that clinicians (and people with seizures and their relatives) have access to accurate and reliable prognostic estimates, to guide clinical practice on the risks of developing further unprovoked seizures (and by definition, a diagnosis of epilepsy) following single unprovoked epileptic seizure.

OBJECTIVES

1. To provide an accurate estimate of the proportion of individuals going on to have further unprovoked seizures at subsequent time points following a single unprovoked epileptic seizure (or cluster of epileptic seizures within a 24-hour period, or a first episode of status epilepticus), of any seizure type (overall prognosis). 2. To evaluate the mortality rate following a first unprovoked epileptic seizure.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases on 19 September 2019 and again on 30 March 2021, with no language restrictions. The Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to March 29, 2021), SCOPUS (1823 onwards), ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). CRS Web includes randomized or quasi-randomized, controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialized Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy. In MEDLINE (Ovid) the coverage end date always lags a few days behind the search date.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies, both retrospective and prospective, of all age groups (except those in the neonatal period (< 1 month of age)), of people with a single unprovoked seizure, followed up for a minimum of six months, with no upper limit of follow-up, with the study end point being seizure recurrence, death, or loss to follow-up. To be included, studies must have included at least 30 participants. We excluded studies that involved people with seizures that occur as a result of an acute precipitant or provoking factor, or in close temporal proximity to an acute neurological insult, since these are not considered epileptic in aetiology (acute symptomatic seizures). We also excluded people with situational seizures, such as febrile convulsions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors conducted the initial screening of titles and abstracts identified through the electronic searches, and removed non-relevant articles. We obtained the full-text articles of all remaining potentially relevant studies, or those whose relevance could not be determined from the abstract alone and two authors independently assessed for eligibility. All disagreements were resolved through discussion with no need to defer to a third review author. We extracted data from included studies using a data extraction form based on the checklist for critical appraisal and data extraction for systematicreviews of prediction modelling studies (CHARMS). Two review authors then appraised the included studies, using a standardised approach based on the quality in prognostic studies (QUIPS) tool, which was adapted for overall prognosis (seizure recurrence). We conducted a meta-analysis using Review Manager 2014, with a random-effects generic inverse variance meta-analysis model, which accounted for any between-study heterogeneity in the prognostic effect. We then summarised the meta-analysis by the pooled estimate (the average prognostic factor effect), its 95% confidence interval (CI), the estimates of I² and Tau² (heterogeneity), and a 95% prediction interval for the prognostic effect in a single population at three various time points, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the ages of the cohorts included; studies involving all ages, studies that recruited adult only and those that were purely paediatric.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-eight studies (involving 54 cohorts), with a total of 12,160 participants (median 147, range 31 to 1443), met the inclusion criteria for the review. Of the 58 studies, 26 studies were paediatric studies, 16 were adult and the remaining 16 studies were a combination of paediatric and adult populations. Most included studies had a cohort study design with two case-control studies and one nested case-control study. Thirty-two studies (29 cohorts) reported a prospective longitudinal design whilst 15 studies had a retrospective design whilst the remaining studies were randomised controlled trials. Nine of the studies included presented mortality data following a first unprovoked seizure. For a mortality study to be included, a proportional mortality ratio (PMR) or a standardised mortality ratio (SMR) had to be given at a specific time point following a first unprovoked seizure. To be included in the meta-analysis a study had to present clear seizure recurrence data at 6 months, 12 months or 24 months. Forty-six studies were included in the meta-analysis, of which 23 were paediatric, 13 were adult, and 10 were a combination of paediatric and adult populations. A meta-analysis was performed at three time points; six months, one year and two years for all ages combined, paediatric and adult studies, respectively. We found an estimated overall seizure recurrence of all included studies at six months of 27% (95% CI 24% to 31%), 36% (95% CI 33% to 40%) at one year and 43% (95% CI 37% to 44%) at two years, with slightly lower estimates for adult subgroup analysis and slightly higher estimates for paediatric subgroup analysis. It was not possible to provide a summary estimate of the risk of seizure recurrence beyond these time points as most of the included studies were of short follow-up and too few studies presented recurrence rates at a single time point beyond two years. The evidence presented was found to be of moderate certainty.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limitations of the data (moderate-certainty of evidence), mainly relating to clinical and methodological heterogeneity we have provided summary estimates for the likely risk of seizure recurrence at six months, one year and two years for both children and adults. This provides information that is likely to be useful for the clinician counselling patients (or their parents) on the probable risk of further seizures in the short-term whilst acknowledging the paucity of long-term recurrence data, particularly beyond 10 years.

Staring Spells: How to Distinguish Epileptic Seizures from Nonepileptic Staring

OBJECTIVE

To determine the nature of staring spells and factors distinguishing epileptic from nonepileptic staring spells, we studied the clinical and demographic features of children with staring spells referred to a regional new-onset seizure clinic.

STUDY DESIGN

Our retrospective chart review encompassed 2818 consecutive patients evaluated in the new-onset seizure clinic between September 22, 2015, and March 19, 2018. We identified 121 patients with newly presenting staring spells.

RESULTS

Sixty-two of 121 (51%) children were diagnosed with nonepileptic staring spells and 59 (49%) with epileptic seizures (24 with absence epilepsy, 35 with focal epilepsy). Patients with nonepileptic staring spells were younger (4.8 vs 7.1 years, P = .001) and more likely to have developmental delay (P = .005) than the seizure group. There was an 8.9-month delay on average from the onset of staring spells to the new-onset seizure clinic visit. The emergency department was a referral source for 80% (28/35) of focal seizures. In children with focal seizures, the staring spells typically lasted >1minute (29/35, 83%), whereas only 19 of 62 (31%) of children with nonepileptic staring spells had events lasting this long (P = .04). All children had a routine electroencephalography (EEG) on the day of new-onset seizure clinic visit. EEG was diagnostic in 100% (24/24) of absence seizures and 51% (18/35) of focal seizures.

CONCLUSIONS

In children presenting with staring spells, the differential diagnosis of epileptic staring spells vs nonepileptic staring spells can be made by history and routine EEG. Staring was as likely to be epileptic as nonepileptic spells. Younger children with developmental delay were more likely to have nonepileptic events. Our simple approach based on event duration, postictal symptoms, and EEG allowed identification of epileptic staring on first visit to new-onset seizure clinic but requires validation in future prospective studies including long-term video EEG monitoring and follow-up.

Diagnostic Delay in Epilepsy: the Scope of the Problem

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Diagnostic delay is an increasingly recognized issue in epilepsy. At the same time, there is a clear disparity between public awareness of epilepsy and that of other public health issues. A contributing factor for this seems to be a lack of studies testing interventions designed to improve seizure recognition. In this review, we summarize the main findings from recent studies investigating diagnostic delay in epilepsy, highlighting causes, consequences, and potential interventions in future research that may improve quality of care in this population.

RECENT FINDINGS

Building on prior evidence, diagnostic delay in patients with new-onset focal epilepsy has been identified as an important problem for patients with epilepsy. Such delay in diagnosis can lead to delayed treatment and potentially preventable morbidity and mortality including motor vehicle accidents. Nonmotor seizure semiology appears to be a major contributor for delay; such seizures are largely unrecognized when patients present to emergency departments for care. Improving recognition and diagnosis of recurrent nonmotor seizures in emergency departments represents a significant opportunity for improving time to diagnosis, particularly when patients present following a first lifetime motor seizure and meet diagnostic criteria for epilepsy. Diagnostic delay in epilepsy is a significant public health issue and recent studies have highlighted potential areas for intervention.