Home video telemetry in children: A comparison to inpatient video telemetry. (October 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Carlson, Sophie; Kandler, Rosalind H.; Moorhouse, David; Ponnusamy, Athi; Mordekar, Santosh R.; Alix, James J.P.
• Is Part Of: Seizure. Volume 61(2018)
• Page Start: 209
• Page End: 213
• Publication Date: 2018-10
• Subjects: Epilepsy -- Seizure -- Paediatric -- Telemetry -- EEG; Epilepsy -- Periodicals; Epilepsy -- Periodicals; Seizures -- Periodicals; Épilepsie -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; Electronic journals; 616.853
• DOI: 10.1016/j.seizure.2018.08.028
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1059-1311

Abstract

Highlights: Home video telemetry provided high quality diagnostic information in children. The ictal capture rate was comparable to standard inpatient video telemetry. User errors did may not impair diagnostic efficacy. Home video telemetry can provide an alternative to inpatient recordings. Abstract: Purpose: Home Video Telemetry (HVT) combines ambulatory EEG with simultaneous video recording. No previous reports have compared HVT and inpatient video telemetry (IVT) in a purely paediatric population. This study compares HVT and IVT in this group in terms of diagnostic efficacy, recording quality and acceptability to parents/carers. Methods: 33 HVT and 29 IVT patients aged 1–17 years were included. Information regarding patient demographics, ictal capture, diagnostic utility, recording quality (e.g. video clarity, EEG artefacts) and parent/carer preferences was documented. Difficulties using HVT equipment were recorded. Results: 62% of IVT patients and 64% of HVT patients had typical attacks during the recording. 59% of IVT and 70% of HVT recordings were considered to have answered the referral question. Study quality was similar in both groups. In HVT studies the rate of equipment difficulties was 52%; problems included camera positioning and failure to turn on the infrared button at night. Diagnostic information was lost in 15% of patients. 76% of parents/carers of HVT patients would choose this investigation again. Conclusions: The diagnostic efficacy and study quality of HVT and IVT are similar in paediatric patients. HVT is acceptable to most parents/carers. User error may compromise the investigation in a minority of cases but did not impact on diagnostic utility. Adoption of HVT investigation could provide an accessible and economic alternative to IVT.