4.7 Article

Clinical risk factors in SUDEP A nationwide population-based case-control study

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 94, 期 4, 页码 E419-E429

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008741

关键词

-

资金

  1. Stockholm County Council
  2. GlaxoSmithKline
  3. Citizens United for Research in Epilepsy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective We conducted a nationwide case-control study in Sweden to test the hypothesis that specific clinical characteristics are associated with increased risk of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP). Methods The study included 255 SUDEP cases (definite and probable) and 1,148 matched controls. Clinical information was obtained from medical records and the National Patient Register. The association between SUDEP and potential risk factors was assessed by odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and interaction assessed by attributable proportion due to interaction (AP). Results Experiencing generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS) during the preceding year was associated with a 27-fold increased risk (OR 26.81, 95% CI 14.86-48.38), whereas no excess risk was seen in those with exclusively non-GTCS seizures (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.54-48.38). The presence of nocturnal GTCS during the last year of observation was associated with a 15-fold risk (OR 15.31, 95% CI 9.57-24.47). Living alone was associated with a 5-fold increased risk of SUDEP (OR 5.01, 95% CI 2.93-8.57) and interaction analysis showed that the combination of not sharing a bedroom and having GTCS conferred an OR of 67.10 (95% CI 29.66-151.88), with AP estimated at 0.69 (CI 0.53-0.85). Among comorbid diseases, a previous diagnosis of substance abuse or alcohol dependence was associated with excess risk of SUDEP. Conclusions Individuals with GTCS who sleep alone have a dramatically increased SUDEP risk. Our results indicate that 69% of SUDEP cases in patients who have GTCS and live alone could be prevented if the patients were not unattended at night or were free from GTCS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据