4.7 Article

Distribution of Febrile Seizure Duration and Associations with Development

期刊

ANNALS OF NEUROLOGY
卷 70, 期 1, 页码 93-100

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ana.22368

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke [NS 43209]
  2. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [HD 36867]
  3. Elsevier/Academic Press
  4. Valeant Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: In prior studies of febrile seizures (FSs), prolonged FSs were defined, absent empirical evidence, as lasting 10 or 15 minutes or more. We assessed the distribution of FS duration in a cohort with first FSs, and the association between FS duration and baseline characteristics of the children. Methods: We calculated the observed cumulative probability, S(t), that a FS would last at least t minutes, S(t) = exp(-t/tau). Data were also fit using a model obtained as the sum of 2 exponential distributions (S[t] = alpha exp[-t/tau(1)] + [1 - alpha]exp[-t/tau(2)]). After assessing the best fit, the cutoff defining long FS was determined. Logistic regression was used to examine associations between long FSs and baseline characteristics, behavior, and development. Results: In 158 children with a first FS, median duration was 4.0 minutes. Duration of FS was best fit by a 2-component mixture exponential model. Using this model, we identified 1 population that accounts for 82.3% of FSs and has a mean duration of 3.8 minutes (short FS) and a second population that accounts for 17.7% of FSs and has a mean duration of 39.8 minutes (long FS). Long FSs were significantly associated with developmental delay (p = 0.010) and delays and younger age at first FS (p = 0.048). Interpretation: Like the distribution of afebrile seizure duration in children, the distribution of first FS duration is best modeled by assuming 2 populations. Developmental delay and younger age are associated with prolonged FSs. Our data lend further support to defining 10 minutes as the upper limit for a simple FS. ANN NEUROL 2011;70:93-100

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