4.7 Article

Fatal Cerebral Edema With Status Epilepticus in Children With Dravet Syndrome: Report of 5 Cases

期刊

PEDIATRICS
卷 139, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2016-1933

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)
  2. NHMRC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dravet syndrome (DS) is a well-recognized developmental and epileptic encephalopathy associated with SCN1A mutations and 15% mortality by 20 years. Although over half of cases succumb to sudden unexpected death in epilepsy, the cause of death in the remainder is poorly defined. We describe the clinical, radiologic, and pathologic characteristics of a cohort of children with DS and SCN1A mutations who developed fatal cerebral edema causing mass effect after fever-associated status epilepticus. Cases were identified from a review of children with DS enrolled in the Epilepsy Genetics Research Program at The University of Melbourne, Austin Health, who died after fever-associated status epilepticus. Five children were identified, all of whom presented with fever-associated convulsive status epilepticus, developed severe brain swelling, and died. All had de novo SCN1A mutations. Fever of 40 degrees C or greater was measured in all cases. Signs of brainstem dysfunction, indicating cerebral herniation, were first noted 3 to 5 days after initial presentation in 4 patients, though were apparent as early as 24 hours in 1 case. When MRI was performed early in a patient's course, focal regions of cortical diffusion restriction were noted. Later MRI studies demonstrated diffuse cytotoxic edema, with severe cerebral herniation. Postmortem studies revealed diffuse brain edema and widespread neuronal damage. Laminar necrosis was seen in 1 case. Cerebral edema leading to fatal brain herniation is an important, previously unreported sequela of status epilepticus in children with DS. This potentially remediable complication may be a significant contributor to the early mortality of DS.

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