4.6 Article

Consistent topography and amplitude symmetry are more typical than morphology of epileptiform discharges in genetic generalized epilepsy

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 127, 期 2, 页码 1138-1146

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2015.08.019

关键词

EEG; Generalized epilepsy; Spike-wave; Seizure; Topography; Morphology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To provide a quantitative evaluation of typical electroencephalographic (EEG) abnormalities in genetic generalized epilepsy (GGE). Methods: We prospectively performed 24-h ambulatory EEG recordings in a cohort of patients with GGE. The diagnosis was established according to the International League Against Epilepsy criteria. Details of all epileptiform discharges across the 24-h time scale were entered into an electronic database. We carried out descriptive statistics to provide a quantitative breakdown of typical EEG abnormalities. Results: A total of 6923 epileptiform discharges from 105 abnormal 24-h ambulatory EEGs were analyzed. 96% of discharges were symmetric in amplitude with fronto-central maximum topographically. Only 24% of the paroxysms had typical morphology while 43% were regular. Photoparoxysmal response, eye-closure sensitivity and hyperventilation-induced generalized paroxysms were less common in around 10%, whereas occipital intermittent rhythmic delta activity was very rare (2%). Conclusion: Our results indicate that generalized discharges with symmetric amplitude and fronto-central maxima are the most consistent findings in GGE, and other features are observed less frequently. Significance: Epileptiform discharges displaying highly consistent amplitude symmetry coupled with fronto-central topography should provoke consideration of GGE. Recognition of variations from typical abnormalities is important to avoid the risk of misdiagnosis and delayed diagnosis. Crown Copyright (C) 2015 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. on behalf of International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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