4.2 Article

Epileptiform Asymetries and Treatment Response in Juvenile Myoclonic Epilepsy

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 37, 期 6, 页码 826-830

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0317167100051519

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Epileptiform electroencephalogram (EEG) asymmetries are not uncommon in juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME) and can contribute to the misdiagnosis of this syndrome. The objective of this study is to further characterize patients with focal or asymmetric epileptiform electroencephalographic abnormalities and more specifically in terms of response to treatment. Controversial data exists in the literature concerning this issue. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed clinical and EEG data of a group of consecutive JME patients followed at our Epilepsy Service. The first EEG available for each patient was reviewed blindly by two independent electroencephalographers. Results: Twenty-eight patients with JME were identified: 11 (39.3%) were resistant to at least one appropriate anti-epileptic drug (AED), including valproate, lamotrigine, topiramate or levetiracetam. All patients except two had generalized epileptiform abnormalities. Overall, EEG asymmetries were detected in 57.1% of the cases. The proportion of EEG asymmetries between AED-sensitive group (52.9%) and AED-resistant group (63.5%) did not reach statistical significance. Concordance between examiners for identification of EEG asymmetries was good. Analysis of patients with and without asymmetries showed no statistically significant differences in comparisons of age, family history of seizure, presence of polyspike and slow wave, photosensitivity and timing of EEG related to the onset of treatment. Conclusion: Asymmetric electroencephalographic abnormalities are frequent in patients with JME. These features should not be misinterpreted as being indicative of partial epilepsy. In our group, asymmetries were not associated with resistance to treatment.

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

4.2
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