4.7 Article

MRI-identified pathology in adults with new-onset seizures

Journal

NEUROLOGY
Volume 81, Issue 10, Pages 920-927

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182a35193

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Royal Melbourne Hospital Neuroscience Foundation
  2. NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence in Translational Neuroscience

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To determine the frequency and nature of potentially epileptogenic lesions on MRI in adults with new-onset seizures. Methods: We prospectively studied a consecutive series of 993 patients (597 males [61%]; mean [SD] age: 42.2 [18.8] years, range 14.3-94.3 years) who presented to an adult First Seizure Clinic over a 10-year period. The MRI scans, performed clinically on 3- and 1.5-tesla scanners, were reviewed for their diagnostic yield, nature of abnormalities, and their association with abnormal electrical activity on EEG. Results: MRI scans were acquired in 764 patients (77%); potentially epileptogenic lesions were detected in 177 (23%). The frequency of potentially epileptogenic lesions was higher in patients who were diagnosed as having an epileptic seizure (28%) than in those with a nonepileptic event (8%) (p < 0.001), and highest in those who had focal-onset seizures (53%) (p < 0.001). The most common lesion type in patients with focal seizures was gliosis or encephalomalacia (49%). Other common lesion types were tumors (15%), cavernomas (9%), and mesial temporal sclerosis (9%). Abnormal MRI and EEG were concordant in 18% of patients, with EEG being normal in 55% of patients with epileptogenic lesions. Conclusions: MRI reveals potentially epileptogenic lesions in a minority of patients with a newly diagnosed seizure disorder. Lesions are most common in patients who have experienced focal seizures. The presence of a potentially epileptogenic MRI lesion did not influence the chance of having an abnormal EEG.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available