4.5 Article

Clinical differences between patients with nonepileptic seizures who report antecedent sexual abuse and those who do not

Journal

EPILEPSIA
Volume 49, Issue 8, Pages 1446-1450

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01611.x

Keywords

pseudoseizures; nonepileptic spells; nonepileptic event disorder; sexual abuse

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To investigate clinical differences between patients with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) who report antecedent sexual abuse, and patients who do not. Methods: In a consecutive series of 176 patients with video-EEG confirmed PNES without epilepsy, we compared patients who reported antecedent sexual abuse with those who did not report sexual abuse, in respect of a range of demographic and clinical variables. Results: Fifty-nine women (45%) and 5 men (11%) reported sexual abuse. Those reporting sexual abuse had earlier onset PNES (28.5 vs. 33.1 years, p = 0.0319) and greater delay from onset to diagnosis (median 5.2 vs. 3.2 years, p < 0.0137). They more often drew social security benefits (p = 0.0054) and were less often in cohabiting relationships (p = 0.0006). Those who reported sexual abuse had poorer mental health on a range of indicators. Their spells were more often convulsive (p = 0.0419), were more severe (p = 0.0011), were more likely to have emotional triggers (p = 0.0045) and to include prodromes (p = 0.0424) and flashbacks (p < 0.0001). A history of nocturnal spells (p = 0.0109), injury during spells (p = 0.0056), and incontinence during spells (p = 0.0083) were also more common in the patients reporting sexual abuse. Discussion: Our results suggest that patients with PNES who report sexual abuse have more severe PNES, are more likely to have PNES with features that suggest epilepsy, and are psychiatrically more unwell than those who do not report sexual abuse.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available