Video ambulatory EEG: A good alternative to inpatient video telemetry?. (April 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kandler, Rosalind; Ponnusamy, Athi; Wragg, Claire
• Is Part Of: Seizure. Volume 47(2017)
• Page Start: 66
• Page End: 70
• Publication Date: 2017-04
• Subjects: Home video telemetry -- Ambulatory EEG -- Epilepsy -- Non-epileptic attack disorder -- Parasomnias; Epilepsy -- Periodicals; Epilepsy -- Periodicals; Seizures -- Periodicals; Épilepsie -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; Electronic journals; 616.853
• DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2017.02.010
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1059-1311

Abstract

Highlights: V-AEEG is an equally effective diagnostic tool as IPVT. V-AEEG provides video and EEG recordings of similar quality to IPVT. Most patients preferred to have V-AEEG rather than IPVT. V-AEEG offers a convenient and economical alternative to IPVT. Abstract: Purpose: Video ambulatory EEG (V-AEEG) is a new technique which could add increased capacity for long term EEG monitoring to overstretched inpatient video telemetry (IPVT) services. We compare V-AEEG and IPVT for diagnostic efficacy, recording quality, patient acceptability and technologist time required. Methods: Forty-one V-AEEG and 64 IPVT adult patients were included. Patients were investigated to diagnose attacks or to obtain polysomnography (PSG) prior to multiple sleep latency test (MSLT). Number of attacks recorded, whether the diagnostic question was answered, quality of video and EEG recording and patients' preference for investigation at home or in hospital were noted. For V-AEEG patients, ease of procedure and extra technologist time required were recorded. Results: Of patients investigated for diagnosis of attacks, 74% V-AEEG patients and 62% IPVT had typical attacks during the investigation. All PSGs were useful in interpreting the MSLTs. Diagnostic questions were answered by 73% V-AEEGs and 73% IPVTs. Quality of EEG and video recording was similar using V-AEEG and IPVT. Four patients had difficulty using V-AEEG equipment but diagnostic information was lost in only one. 5% of V-AEEG patients would have preferred hospital investigation but 45% of IPVT patients would have preferred home investigation. Extra technologist time for home visits (mean 2 h) was required only for the first 7 patients. Conclusion: Video EEG recording quality and diagnostic efficacy from V-AEEG are similar to IPVT. V-AEEG is acceptable to most patients and does not require additional technical time. Hence, V-AEEG offers a convenient, economical alternative to IPVT.