Abstract Details

Title Evaluating a Data Quality and Safety Protocol for Epilepsy Monitoring Units: Two Years of Experience.

Topic Epilepsy/Clinical Neurophysiology (EEG)

Presentation(s) P6 - Poster Session 6 (12:00 PM-1:00 PM)

Poster/Presentation
Number 12-011

Background

Up to 30-40% of all epileptic patients have drug-resistant epilepsy, with an indication to perform video-electroencephalography (VEEG) monitoring. Despite the worldwide use of VEEG for epilepsy investigation, there is considerable variability in the methodology of the exam and in the report of the results. Recently, Sauro et al. provided a set of measures aiming to improve the report of VEEG quality and safety indicators.

Objective Sauro et al. (Epilepsia, 2016) provided a set of measures aiming to improve the report of VEEG quality indicators. Here we report our experience of two years with this set of measures.

Design/Methods We reviewed data of all patients that were submitted to video-EEG monitoring in our institution from January 2016 to January of 2018. A total of 101 patients were monitored in our VEEG unit. We evaluate the use of a systematic model of reporting video-EEG data, as proposed by Sauro et al. and are reporting our experience with this protocol.

Results A definitive diagnosis, change in diagnosis and change in treatment were possible for 92.1%, 36.6% and 65.3% of the patients, respectively. The referral question was fully answered in 60.4% of the admissions, and the VEEG exam was considered very useful or extremely useful for 66.4% of the patients. Adverse events occurred in 26.7% of the patients. The most common were evolution from focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures and seizure clusters in 11.9% and 5.9% of the patients, respectively. No clinically relevant seizure-related injuries or deaths occurred.

Conclusions This protocol encompass all the major indicators of a VEEG exam. Nonetheless, there might be important practical challenges due to wide heterogeneity in terminology across studies and the lack of objective criteria for the definition of key questions such as answering the referral question and the overall diagnostic utility of the exam. Improvement of these aspects may be necessary.

Authors/Disclosures
Marino Bianchini PRESENTER	No disclosure on file
	No disclosure on file
	No disclosure on file
	No disclosure on file
	No disclosure on file
	No disclosure on file
	No disclosure on file