Ostendorf, Adam P.

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.

AbstractObjectiveDrug‐resistant epilepsy (DRE) occurs at higher rates in children <3 years old. Epilepsy surgery is effective, but rarely utilized in young children despite developmental benefits of early seizure freedom. The present study aims to identify unique patient characteristics and evaluation strategies in children <3 years old who undergo epilepsy surgery evaluation as a means to assess contributors and potential solutions to health care disparities in this group.MethodsThe Pediatric Epilepsy Research Consortium Epilepsy Surgery Database, a multicentered, cross‐sectional collaboration of 21 US pediatric epilepsy centers, collects prospective data on children <18 years of age referred for epilepsy surgery evaluation. We compared patient characteristics, diagnostic utilization, and surgical treatment between children <3 years old and those older undergoing initial presurgical evaluation. We evaluated patient characteristics leading to delayed referral (>1 year) after DRE diagnosis in the very young.ResultsThe cohort included 437 children, of whom 71 (16%) were <3 years of age at referral. Children evaluated before the age of 3 years more commonly had abnormal neurological examinations (p = .002) and daily seizures (p = .001). At least one ancillary test was used in 44% of evaluations. Fifty‐nine percent were seizure‐free following surgery (n = 34), with 35% undergoing limited focal resections. Children with delayed referrals more often had focal aware (p < .001) seizures and recommendation for palliative surgeries (p < .001).SignificanceThere are relatively few studies of epilepsy surgery in the very young. Surgery is effective, but may be disproportionally offered to those with severe presentations. Relatively low utilization of ancillary testing may contribute to reduced surgical therapy for those without evident lesions on magnetic resonance imaging. Despite this, a sizeable portion of patients have favorable outcome after focal epilepsy surgery resections.

Abstract Objective This study was undertaken to evaluate benzodiazepine (BZD) administration patterns before transitioning to non‐BZD antiseizure medication (ASM) in pediatric patients with refractory convulsive status epilepticus (rSE). Methods This retrospective multicenter study in the United States and Canada used prospectively collected observational data from children admitted with rSE between 2011 and 2020. Outcome variables were the number of BZDs given before the first non‐BZD ASM, and the number of BZDs administered after 30 and 45 min from seizure onset and before escalating to non‐BZD ASM. Results We included 293 patients with a median (interquartile range) age of 3.8 (1.3–9.3) years. Thirty‐six percent received more than two BZDs before escalating, and the later the treatment initiation was after seizure onset, the less likely patients were to receive multiple BZD doses before transitioning (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = .998, 95% confidence interval [CI] = .997–.999 per minute, p = .01). Patients received BZDs beyond 30 and 45 min in 57.3% and 44.0% of cases, respectively. Patients with out‐of‐hospital seizure onset were more likely to receive more doses of BZDs beyond 30 min (IRR = 2.43, 95% CI = 1.73–3.46, p < .0001) and beyond 45 min (IRR = 3.75, 95% CI = 2.40–6.03, p < .0001) compared to patients with in‐hospital seizure onset. Intermittent SE was a risk factor for more BZDs administered beyond 45 min compared to continuous SE (IRR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.01–2.06, p = .04). Forty‐seven percent of patients ( n = 94) with out‐of‐hospital onset did not receive treatment before hospital arrival. Among patients with out‐of‐hospital onset who received at least two BZDs before hospital arrival ( n = 54), 48.1% received additional BZDs at hospital arrival. Significance Failure to escalate from BZDs to non‐BZD ASMs occurs mainly in out‐of‐hospital rSE onset. Delays in the implementation of medical guidelines may be reduced by initiating treatment before hospital arrival and facilitating a transition to non‐BZD ASMs after two BZD doses during handoffs between prehospital and in‐hospital settings.

AbstractObjectiveThis study was undertaken to describe long‐term clinical and developmental outcomes in pediatric refractory status epilepticus (RSE) and identify factors associated with new neurological deficits after RSE.MethodsWe performed retrospective analyses of prospectively collected observational data from June 2011 to March 2020 on pediatric patients with RSE. We analyzed clinical outcomes from at least 30 days after RSE and, in a subanalysis, we assessed developmental outcomes and evaluated risk factors in previously normally developed patients.ResultsFollow‐up data on outcomes were available in 276 patients (56.5% males). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) follow‐up duration was 1.6 (.9–2.7) years. The in‐hospital mortality rate was 4% (16/403 patients), and 15 (5.4%) patients had died after hospital discharge. One hundred sixty‐six (62.9%) patients had subsequent unprovoked seizures, and 44 (16.9%) patients had a repeated RSE episode. Among 116 patients with normal development before RSE, 42 of 107 (39.3%) patients with available data had new neurological deficits (cognitive, behavioral, or motor). Patients with new deficits had longer median (IQR) electroclinical RSE duration than patients without new deficits (10.3 [2.1–134.5] h vs. 4 [1.6–16] h, p = .011, adjusted odds ratio = 1.003, 95% confidence interval = 1.0008–1.0069, p = .027). The proportion of patients with an unfavorable functional outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale‐Extended score ≥ 4) was 22 of 90 (24.4%), and they were more likely to have received a continuous infusion.SignificanceAbout one third of patients without prior epilepsy developed recurrent unprovoked seizures after the RSE episode. In previously normally developing patients, 39% presented with new deficits during follow‐up, with longer electroclinical RSE duration as a predictor.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the pediatric super-refractory status epilepticus population by describing treatment variability in super-refractory status epilepticus patients and comparing relevant clinical characteristics, including outcomes, between super-refractory status epilepticus, and nonsuper-refractory status epilepticus patients. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study with prospectively collected data between June 2011 and January 2019. SETTING: Seventeen academic hospitals in the United States. PATIENTS: We included patients 1 month to 21 years old presenting with convulsive refractory status epilepticus. We defined super-refractory status epilepticus as continuous or intermittent seizures lasting greater than or equal to 24 hours following initiation of continuous infusion and divided the cohort into super-refractory status epilepticus and nonsuper-refractory status epilepticus groups. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified 281 patients (157 males) with a median age of 4.1 years (1.3–9.5 yr), including 31 super-refractory status epilepticus patients. Compared with nonsuper-refractory status epilepticus group, super-refractory status epilepticus patients had delayed initiation of first nonbenzodiazepine-antiseizure medication (149 min [55–491.5 min] vs 62 min [33.3–120.8 min]; p = 0.030) and of continuous infusion (495 min [177.5–1,255 min] vs 150 min [90–318.5 min]; p = 0.003); prolonged seizure duration (120 hr [58–368 hr] vs 3 hr [1.4–5.9 hr]; p < 0.001) and length of ICU stay (17 d [9.5–40 d] vs [1.8–8.8 d]; p < 0.001); more medical complications (18/31 [58.1%] vs 55/250 [22.2%] patients; p < 0.001); lower return to baseline function (7/31 [22.6%] vs 182/250 [73.4%] patients; p < 0.001); and higher mortality (4/31 [12.9%] vs 5/250 [2%]; p = 0.010). Within the super-refractory status epilepticus group, status epilepticus resolution was attained with a single continuous infusion in 15 of 31 patients (48.4%), two in 10 of 31 (32.3%), and three or more in six of 31 (19.4%). Most super-refractory status epilepticus patients (30/31, 96.8%) received midazolam as first choice. About 17 of 31 patients (54.8%) received additional treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Super-refractory status epilepticus patients had delayed initiation of nonbenzodiazepine antiseizure medication treatment, higher number of medical complications and mortality, and lower return to neurologic baseline than nonsuper-refractory status epilepticus patients, although these associations were not adjusted for potential confounders. Treatment approaches following the first continuous infusion were heterogeneous, reflecting limited information to guide clinical decision-making in super-refractory status epilepticus.