Mortality, morbidity and refractoriness prediction in status epilepticus: Comparison of STESS and EMSE scores. (March 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Giovannini, Giada; Monti, Giulia; Tondelli, Manuela; Marudi, Andrea; Valzania, Franco; Leitinger, Markus; Trinka, Eugen; Meletti, Stefano
• Is Part Of: Seizure. Volume 46(2017)
• Page Start: 31
• Page End: 37
• Publication Date: 2017-03
• Subjects: AUROC area under the receiving operating curve -- CSE complex status epilepticus -- EMSE Epidemiology based Mortality score in Status Epilepticus -- ICU Intensive Care Unit -- NCSE non convulsive status epilepticus -- NPV negative predictive value -- PPV positive predictive value -- ROC receiving operating curve -- SE status epilepticus -- STESS Status Epilepticus Severity Score; status epilepticus -- mortality -- morbidity -- refractoriness -- EMSE -- STESS; Epilepsy -- Periodicals; Epilepsy -- Periodicals; Seizures -- Periodicals; Épilepsie -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; Electronic journals; 616.853
• DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2017.01.004
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1059-1311

Abstract

Highlights: EMSE-64 shows high accuracy in predicting 30-days mortality and morbidity. Sensitivity and specificity of EMSE-64 for mortality prediction are higher compared with STESS. All scales showed poor accuracy to predict drug response. At present, there are no reliable scores to predict treatment refractoriness. Abstract: Purpose: Status epilepticus (SE) is a neurological emergency, characterized by high short-term morbidity and mortality. We evaluated and compared two scores that have been developed to evaluate status epilepticus prognosis: STESS (Status Epilepticus Severity Score) and EMSE (Epidemiology based Mortality score in Status Epilepticus). Methods: A prospective observational study was performed on consecutive patients with SE admitted between September 2013 and August 2015. Demographics, clinical variables, STESS-3 and -4, and EMSE-64 scores were calculated for each patient at baseline. SE drug response, 30-day mortality and morbidity were the outcomes measure. Results: 162 episodes of SE were observed: 69% had a STESS ≥3; 34% had a STESS ≥4; 51% patients had an EMSE ≥64. The 30-days mortality was 31.5%: EMSE-64 showed greater negative predictive value (NPV) (97.5%), positive predictive value (PPV) (59.8%) and accuracy in the prediction of death than STESS-3 and STESS-4 (p < 0.001). At 30 days, the clinical condition had deteriorated in 59% of the cases: EMSE-64 showed greater NPV (71.3%), PPV (87.8%) and accuracy than STESS-3 and STESS-4 (p < 0.001) in the prediction of this outcome. In 23% of all cases, status epilepticus proved refractory to non-anaesthetic treatment. All three scales showed a high NPV (EMSE-64: 87.3%; STESS-4: 89.4%; STESS-3: 87.5%) but a low PPV (EMSE-64: 40.9%; STESS-4: 52.9%; STESS-3: 32%) for the prediction of refractoriness to first and second line drugs. This means that accuracy for the prediction of refractoriness was equally poor for all scales. Conclusions: EMSE-64 appears superior to STESS-3 and STESS-4 in the prediction of 30-days mortality and morbidity. All scales showed poor accuracy in the prediction of response to first and second line antiepileptic drugs. At present, there are no reliable scores capable of predicting treatment responsiveness.