Herman, Susan T.

Objective Epilepsy surgery is vital in managing of children with drug-resistant epilepsy. Noninvasive and invasive testing modalities allow for evaluation and treatment of children with drug-resistant epilepsy. Evidence-based algorithms for this process do not exist. This study examines expert response to a vignette of pediatric nonlesional epilepsy to assess associations in evaluation and treatment choices. Methods We analyzed annual report data and an epilepsy practice survey reported in 2020 from 135 pediatric epilepsy center directors in the United States. Characteristics of centers along with noninvasive and invasive testing and surgical treatment strategies were collected. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was performed. Results The response rate was 100% with 135 responses included in the analyses. Most used noninvasive testing modalities included Neuropsychology evaluation (90%), interictal brain fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (85%), and functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (72%) with nearly half obtaining genetic testing. Choosing functional MRI was associated with stereo electroencephalography (EEG) ( P = .025) and selecting Wada with subdural grid/strips ( P = .038). Directors from pediatric-only centers were more likely to choose stereo EEG as opposed to combined centers ( P = .042). Laser interstitial thermal therapy was almost 7 times as likely to be chosen as a treatment modality compared with open resection in dedicated pediatric centers (OR 6.96, P = .002). Significance In a vignette of nonlesional childhood drug-resistant epilepsy, epilepsy center directors’ patterns of noninvasive testing, invasive testing, and treatment were examined. Management choices were associated with pediatric versus combined pediatric/adult center characteristics. Expert opinions demonstrated equipoise in evaluation and management of children with drug-resistant epilepsy and the need for evidence-based management strategies.

Abstract Objective The evaluation to determine candidacy and treatment for epilepsy surgery in persons with drug‐resistant epilepsy (DRE) is not uniform. Many non‐invasive and invasive tests are available to ascertain an appropriate treatment strategy. This study examines expert response to clinical vignettes of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–positive lesional focal cortical dysplasia in both temporal and extratemporal epilepsy to identify associations in evaluations and treatment choice. Methods We analyzed annual report data and a supplemental epilepsy practice survey reported in 2020 from 206 adult and 136 pediatric epilepsy center directors in the United States. Non‐invasive and invasive testing and surgical treatment strategies were compiled for the two scenarios. We used chi‐square tests to compare testing utilization between the two scenarios. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was performed to assess associations between variables. Results The supplemental survey response rate was 100% with 342 responses included in the analyses. Differing testing and treatment approaches were noted between the temporal and extratemporal scenarios such as chronic invasive monitoring selected in 60% of the temporal scenario versus 93% of the extratemporal scenario. Open resection was the most common treatment choice; however, overall treatment choices varied significantly ( p < .001). Associations between non‐invasive testing, invasive testing, and treatment choices were present in both scenarios. For example, in the temporal scenario stereo‐electroencephalography (SEEG) was more commonly associated with fluorodeoxyglucose–positron emission tomography (FDG‐PET) (odds ratio [OR] 1.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06–3.29; p = .033), magnetoencephalography (MEG) (OR 2.90; 95% CI 1.60–5.28; p = <.001), high density (HD) EEG (OR 2.80; 95% CI 1.27–6.24; p = .011), functional MRI (fMRI) (OR 2.17; 95% CI 1.19–4.10; p = .014), and Wada (OR 2.16; 95% CI 1.28–3.66; p = .004). In the extratemporal scenario, choosing SEEG was associated with increased odds of neuromodulation over open resection (OR 3.13; 95% CI 1.24–7.89; p = .016). Significance In clinical vignettes of temporal and extratemporal lesional DRE, epilepsy center directors displayed varying patterns of non‐invasive testing, invasive testing, and treatment choices. Differences in practice underscore the need for comparative trials for the surgical management of DRE.

Abstract Objective Persons with drug‐resistant epilepsy may benefit from epilepsy surgery and should undergo presurgical testing to determine potential candidacy and appropriate intervention. Institutional expertise can influence use and availability of evaluations and epilepsy surgery candidacy. This census survey study aims to examine the influence of geographic region and other center characteristics on presurgical testing for medically intractable epilepsy. Methods We analyzed annual report and supplemental survey data reported in 2020 from 206 adult epilepsy center directors and 136 pediatric epilepsy center directors in the United States. Test utilization data were compiled with annual center volumes, available resources, and US Census regional data. We used Wilcoxon rank‐sum, Kruskal–Wallis, and chi‐squared tests for univariate analysis of procedure utilization. Multivariable modeling was also performed to assign odds ratios (ORs) of significant variables. Results The response rate was 100% with individual element missingness < 11% across 342 observations undergoing univariate analysis. A total of 278 complete observations were included in the multivariable models, and significant regional differences were present. For instance, compared to centers in the South, those in the Midwest used neuropsychological testing (OR = 2.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2–6.86; p = .018) and fluorodeoxyglucose–positron emission tomography (OR = 2.74, 95% CI = = 1.14–6.61; p = .025) more commonly. For centers in the Northeast (OR = .46, 95% CI = .23–.93; p = .031) and West (OR = .41, 95% CI = .19–.87; p = .022), odds of performing single‐photon emission computerized tomography were lower by nearly 50% compared to those in the South. Center accreditation level, demographics, volume, and resources were also associated with varying individual testing rates. Significance Presurgical testing for drug‐resistant epilepsy is influenced by US geographic region and other center characteristics. These findings have potential implications for comparing outcomes between US epilepsy centers and may inject disparities in access to surgical treatment.

Abstract Deep brain stimulation of the anterior nuclei of thalamus (ANT‐DBS) is effective for reduction of seizures, but little evidence is available to guide practitioners in the practical use of this therapy. In an attempt to fill this gap, a questionnaire with 37 questions was circulated to 578 clinicians who were either engaged in clinical trials of or known users of DBS for epilepsy, with responses from 141, of whom 58.2% were epileptologists and 28.4% neurosurgeons. Multiple regions of the world were represented. The survey found that the best candidates for DBS were considered those with temporal or frontal seizures, refractory to at least two medicines. Motivations for renewing therapy upon battery depletion were reduced convulsive, impaired awareness, and severe seizures and improved quality of life. Targeting of leads mainly was by magnetic resonance imaging, sometimes with intraoperative imaging or microelectrode recording. The majority used transventricular approaches. Stimulation parameters mostly imitated the SANTE study parameters, except for initial stimulation amplitudes in the 2–3‐V or ‐mA range, versus 5 V in the SANTE study. Stimulation intensity was most often increased or reduced, respectively, for lack of efficacy or side effects, but changes in active contacts, cycle time, and pulse duration were also employed. Mood or memory problems or paresthesias were the side effects most responsible for adjustments. Off‐label sites stimulated included centromedian thalamus, hippocampus, neocortex, and a few others. Several physicians used DBS in conjunction with vagus nerve stimulation or responsive neurostimulation, although our study did not track efficacy for combined use. Experienced users varied more from published parameters than did inexperienced users. In conclusion, surveys of experts can provide Class IV evidence for the most prevalent practical use of ANT‐DBS. We present a flowchart for one protocol combining common practices. Controlled comparisons will be needed to choose the best approach.

Abstract The objective of this clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to provide recommendations for healthcare personnel working with patients with epilepsy on the use of wearable devices for automated seizure detection in patients with epilepsy, in outpatient, ambulatory settings. The Working Group of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) and the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN) developed the CPG according to the methodology proposed by the ILAE Epilepsy Guidelines Working Group. We reviewed the published evidence using The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis (PRISMA) statement and evaluated the evidence and formulated the recommendations following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. We found high level of evidence for the accuracy of automated detection of generalized tonic‐clonic seizures (GTCS) and focal‐to‐bilateral tonic‐clonic seizures (FBTCS) and recommend the use of wearable automated seizure detection devices for selected patients when accurate detection of GTCS and FBTCS is recommended as a clinical adjunct. We also found a moderate level of evidence for seizure types without GTCS or FBTCS. However, it was uncertain whether the detected alarms resulted in meaningful clinical outcomes for the patients. We recommend using clinically validated devices for automated detection of GTCS and FBTCS, especially in unsupervised patients, where alarms can result in rapid intervention (weak/conditional recommendation). At present, we do not recommend clinical use of the currently available devices for other seizure types (weak/conditional recommendation). Further research and development are needed to improve the performance of automated seizure detection and to document their accuracy and clinical utility.

Summary: High-density EEG (HD-EEG) recordings use a higher spatial sampling of scalp electrodes than a standard 10-20 low-density EEG montage. Although several studies have demonstrated improved localization of the epileptogenic cortex using HD-EEG, widespread implementation is impeded by cost, setup and interpretation time, and lack of specific or sufficient procedural billing codes. Despite these barriers, HD-EEG has been in use at several institutions for years. These centers have noted utility in a variety of clinical scenarios where increased spatial resolution from HD-EEG has been required, justifying the extra time and cost. We share select scenarios from several centers, using different recording techniques and software, where HD-EEG provided information above and beyond the standard low-density EEG. We include seven cases where HD-EEG contributed directly to current clinical care of epilepsy patients and highlight two novel techniques which suggest potential opportunities to improve future clinical care. Cases illustrate how HD-EEG allows clinicians to: case 1—lateralize falsely generalized interictal epileptiform discharges; case 2—improve localization of falsely generalized epileptic spasms; cases 3 and 4—improve localization of interictal epileptiform discharges in anatomic regions below the circumferential limit of standard low-density EEG coverage; case 5—improve noninvasive localization of the seizure onset zone in lesional epilepsy; cases 6 and 7—improve localization of the seizure onset zone to guide invasive investigation near eloquent cortex; case 8—identify epileptic fast oscillations; and case 9—map language cortex. Together, these nine cases illustrate that using both visual analysis and advanced techniques, HD-EEG can play an important role in clinical management.