Caraway, Avery Robert

Abstract Objective Despite being safe and effective, surgery for pediatric epilepsy is underutilized. Social determinants of health (SDoH) are important to consider when examining this treatment gap. This study examined the potential systemic inequities at three different stages in the journey toward epilepsy surgery across the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Consortium (PERC). Methods Any youth in the PERC prospective surgery database (≤18 years) was eligible and included if sociodemographic factors were also available. We examined if there were differences in disparity factors in: (1) referral to Phase I evaluation, (2) offering of surgery, and (3) completion of surgery. Results Of 1309 patients, the majority were male (53%, p = .04), White (82.2%, p < .001), not Hispanic or Latino (84.3%, p < .001), and privately insured (56.3%, p < .001). Of the youth who were offered surgical treatment ( n = 1103, 84.3%), there were no significant differences in race/ethnicity or sex. Those with a structural lesion were more likely to be offered surgery, and historically marginalized youth were more likely to have a lesion. Of patients who completed surgery ( n = 927, 84.0%), White patients were 1.88 times (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.14–3.04) more likely than Black patients to complete surgery ( p = .01). Significance Youth who began surgery evaluation are not representative of the demographics of those with epilepsy in the United States, with greater representation of White, non‐Hispanic male individuals. In addition, youth who began surgery evaluation disproportionally have private insurance. At the next stage of offering surgery, there were no differences based on SDoH. However, there is evidence that underrepresented youth that were magnetic resonance negative were less likely to be referred for surgical workup and that Black youth were less likely to undergo surgery. Therefore, efforts to provide equitable opportunity for all youth with refractory epilepsy should be concentrated at the referral for surgery evaluation point of care; however, additional efforts are also needed at later stages.

ABSTRACT Rationale Longer duration of epilepsy before surgery is a predictor of poor outcome. While referral delays of surgical candidates are well documented, factors causing delay during the presurgical evaluation remain unclear and may vary depending on institutional characteristics. By benchmarking the duration of presurgical evaluation across multiple centers and identifying patient and evaluation characteristics contributing to duration, we can ascertain best practices and address modifiable contributors to reduce delays. Methods We queried the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Consortium Surgery Database, a prospective, observational multicenter study enrolling children 0–18 years at 27 US pediatric epilepsy centers, for all patients undergoing initial presurgical evaluation for drug‐resistant epilepsy (DRE). We included patients with completed evaluations and data on duration from initiation of presurgical evaluation to final surgical decision. We compared patient characteristics and evaluation components between those with long duration evaluations (> 75% quartile) and those with short evaluations (< 25% quartile). Akaike information criteria selection identified variables associated with longer duration. From these, we developed a logistic prediction model for evaluation duration, using a random 80/20 training/testing split of the entire cohort. The model was tested among institutions with ≥ 10 patients in the cohort to assess its accuracy in predicting long durations. Linear models for each site assessed each variable's impact on duration. Variables with < 10% of the patient population at each site were excluded. Beta values were compared to identify intra‐ and inter‐institution variability and to delineate institutions with the shortest added duration for each variable. Results Of 2318 patients undergoing surgical evaluation, 1655 (71%) from 23 sites had complete data. Median evaluation duration was 8 weeks (interquartile range 3–22); 453 (27%) were short‐duration evaluations and 414 (25%) were long‐duration evaluations. Multiple patient and evaluation characteristics were associated with duration (Table 1). Table 6 provides the average duration each variable contributes to evaluation by site, highlighting the shortest durations compared with other groups. Conclusions Duration of presurgical evaluation for DRE can be accurately modeled using multiple patient characteristics and testing strategies commonly employed in epilepsy surgery evaluations. This predictive model can not only estimate evaluation duration but also identify opportunities to improve systemic efficiency. Institution‐level modeling identifies specific program strengths, providing an opportunity to learn from successful processes. Subsequent research will focus on institutional process mapping to better understand systemic practices that lead to improved efficiencies, then sharing these processes across the consortium to shorten evaluation durations.