4.4 Article

Tumor-associated status epilepticus: A prospective cohort in a tertiary hospital

Journal

EPILEPSY & BEHAVIOR
Volume 111, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2020.107291

Keywords

Tumor-associated status epilepticus; Status epilepticus; Brain tumor; Epilepsy; Structural epilepsy; LPDs

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Tumor-associated status epilepticus (TASE) follows a relatively benign course compared with SE in the general population. Little, however, is known about associated prognostic factors. Methods: We conducted a prospective, observational study of all cases of TASE treated at a tertiary hospital in Barcelona, Spain between May 2011 and May 2019. We collected data on tumor and SE characteristics and baseline functional status and analyzed associations with outcomes at discharge and 1-year follow-up. Results: Eighty-two patients were studied; 58.5% (n = 48) had an aggressive tumor (glioblastoma or brain metastasis). Fifty-one patients (62.2%) had a favorable outcome at discharge compared with just 30 patients (25.8%) at 1-year follow-up. Fourteen patients (17.1%) died during hospitalization. Lateralized period discharges (LPDs) on the baseline electroencephalography (EEG), presence of metastasis, and SE severity were significantly associated with a worse outcome at discharge. The independent predictors of poor prognosis at 1-year follow-up were SE duration of at least 21 h, an aggressive brain tumor, and a nonsurgical treatment before SE onset. Lateralized period discharges, super-refractory SE, and an aggressive tumor type were independently associated with increased mortality. Conclusions: Status epilepticus duration is the main modifiable factor associated with poor prognosis at 1-year follow-up. Accordingly, patients with TASE, like those with SE of any etiology, should receive early, aggressive treatment. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available