Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2023; 81(07): 641-646
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1768160
Original Article

Latency of epileptic and psychogenic nonepileptic seizures

Latencia de las crisis epilépticas y psicógenas no epilépticas
Hulya Ozkan 
1   Trakya University, School of Medicine, Department of Neurology, Edirne, Turkey.
,
Meliha Turksever 
1   Trakya University, School of Medicine, Department of Neurology, Edirne, Turkey.
,
Baburhan Guldiken 
1   Trakya University, School of Medicine, Department of Neurology, Edirne, Turkey.
,
Necdet Sut 
2   Trakya University, School of Medicine, Department of Biostatistics and Informatics, Edirne, Turkey.
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Due to their semiological similarities, psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNESs) can occasionally hardly be differentiated from epileptic seizures (ESs), and long-term video-electroencephalographic monitoring (VEM) is needed for the differential diagnosis.

Objective To investigate the time of the first clinical event and its distribution on the days of VEM in ES and PNES patients.

Methods In total, a consecutive series of 48 PNES and 51 ES patients matched for gender and age were retrospectively and consecutively evaluated. The time distribution of the seizures during the day was noted. Seizure latency was determined as the time in hours from the start of the video-electroencephalographic recording to the first clinical event.

Results The seizure latency was significantly shorter in PNES patients compared to ES patients (p < 0.001). Seventy-two percent of PNES patients and 49.1% of ES patients had their first seizure in the 24 hours of video-EEG recording (p = 0.023). Recording longer than 48 hours was required for 12.5% of PNES patients and 37.3% of ES patients (p = 0.006). While ESs were almost evenly distributed throughout the day, most PNESs occurred during the evening hours (p = 0.011).

Conclusion We observed that the PNESs appeared earlier than the ESs in the VEM and were concentrated during daylight hours. Although not strictly reliable, seizure latency can contribute to the differential diagnosis of ES and PNES.

Resumen

Antecedentes Debido a sus similitudes semiológicas, las crisis no epilépticas psicógenas (CNEP) en ocasiones apenas se pueden diferenciar de las crisis epilépticas (CE), y se necesita una monitorización video-electroencefalográfica (EEG) prolongada para el diagnóstico diferencial.

Objectivo Investigar el momento del primer evento clínico y su distribución en los días de monitorización video-EEG en pacientes con CE y CNEP.

Métodos Se evaluó retrospectivamente a una serie consecutiva de 48 pacientes con CNEP y 51 con ES emparejados por sexo y edad. Se anotó la distribución temporal de las incautaciones durante el día. La latencia de las crisis se determinó como el tiempo en horas desde el inicio de la grabación del video-EEG hasta el primer evento clínico.

Resultados La latencia de las crisis fue significativamente menor en los pacientes con CNEP en comparación con los pacientes con CE (p < 0,001). El 72% de los pacientes con CNEP y el 49,1% de los pacientes con CE tuvieron su primera crisis en las 24 horas de registro del video-EEG (p = 0,023). Se requirió un registro de más de 48 horas para el 12,5% de los pacientes con CNEP y el 37,3% de los pacientes con CE (p = 0,006). Mientras que las CE se distribuyeron casi uniformemente a lo largo del día, la mayoría de las CNEP ocurrieron durante las horas después del anochecer (p = 0,011).

Conclusión Observamos que las CNEPs aparecieron antes que las CEs en la monitorización video-EEG, y se agruparon durante las horas del día. Aunque no es estrictamente confiable, la latencia de las crisis puede contribuir al diagnóstico diferencial de ES y CNEP.

Keywords

Psychogenic Nonepileptic Seizures - Epilepsy - Electroencephalography

Palabras clave

Convulsiones Psicógenas no Epilépticas - Epilepsia - Electroencefalografía

Authors' Contributions

HO, BG: contributed substantially to the conception or design of the study; HO, MT, NS: contributed to the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; HO: contributed to the writing or critical review of the manuscript; BG: contributed to the approval of the final version to be published.




Publication History

Received: 02 November 2022

Accepted: 15 February 2023

Article published online:
24 July 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • References

  • 1 Avbersek A, Sisodiya S. Does the primary literature provide support for clinical signs used to distinguish psychogenic nonepileptic seizures from epileptic seizures?. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2010; 81 (07) 719-725
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Seneviratne U, Minato E, Paul E. How reliable is ictal duration to differentiate psychogenic nonepileptic seizures from epileptic seizures?. Epilepsy Behav 2017; 66: 127-131
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Sagi V, Shoup J, Chilukuri R, Evans MS. Latency to First Event is Shorter in Psychogenic Non-epileptic Seizures than in Epileptic Seizures in an Epilepsy Monitoring Unit. Innov Clin Neurosci 2020; 17 (7-9): 26-29
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Parra J, Kanner AM, Iriarte J, Gil-Nagel A. When should induction protocols be used in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with paroxysmal events?. Epilepsia 1998; 39 (08) 863-867
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Rose AB, McCabe PH, Gilliam FG. et al; Consortium for Research in Epilepsy. Occurrence of seizure clusters and status epilepticus during inpatient video-EEG monitoring. Neurology 2003; 60 (06) 975-978
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Foong M, Seneviratne U. Optimal duration of video-electroencephalographic monitoring to capture seizures. J Clin Neurosci 2016; 28: 55-60
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Woollacott IO, Scott C, Fish DR, Smith SM, Walker MC. When do psychogenic nonepileptic seizures occur on a video/EEG telemetry unit?. Epilepsy Behav 2010; 17 (02) 228-235
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Friedman DE, Hirsch LJ. How long does it take to make an accurate diagnosis in an epilepsy monitoring unit?. J Clin Neurophysiol 2009; 26 (04) 213-217
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Lobello K, Morgenlander JC, Radtke RA, Bushnell CD. Video/EEG monitoring in the evaluation of paroxysmal behavioral events: duration, effectiveness, and limitations. Epilepsy Behav 2006; 8 (01) 261-266
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Cox FME, Reus EEM, Visser GH. Timing of first event in inpatient long-term video-EEG monitoring for diagnostic purposes. Epilepsy Res 2017; 129: 91-94
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Benbadis SR, Johnson K, Anthony K. et al. Induction of psychogenic nonepileptic seizures without placebo. Neurology 2000; 55 (12) 1904-1905
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Craciun L, Varga ET, Mindruta I. et al. Diagnostic yield of five minutes compared to three minutes hyperventilation during electroencephalography. Seizure 2015; 30: 90-92
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 McGonigal A, Oto M, Russell AJC, Greene J, Duncan R. Outpatient video EEG recording in the diagnosis of non-epileptic seizures: a randomised controlled trial of simple suggestion techniques. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002; 72 (04) 549-551
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Eisenman LN, Attarian H, Fessler AJ, Vahle VJ, Gilliam F. Self-reported seizure frequency and time to first event in the seizure monitoring unit. Epilepsia 2005; 46 (05) 664-668
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Perrin MW, Sahoo SK, Goodkin HP. Latency to first psychogenic nonepileptic seizure upon admission to inpatient EEG monitoring: evidence for semiological differences. Epilepsy Behav 2010; 19 (01) 32-35
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Benbadis SR. A spell in the epilepsy clinic and a history of “chronic pain” or “fibromyalgia” independently predict a diagnosis of psychogenic seizures. Epilepsy Behav 2005; 6 (02) 264-265
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Dericioğlu N, Saygi S, Ciğer A. The value of provocation methods in patients suspected of having non-epileptic seizures. Seizure 1999; 8 (03) 152-156
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Gates JR. Provocative testing should not be used for nonepileptic seizures. Arch Neurol 2001; 58 (12) 2065-2066
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Bazil CW, Walczak TS. Effects of sleep and sleep stage on epileptic and nonepileptic seizures. Epilepsia 1997; 38 (01) 56-62
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Benbadis SR, Lancman ME, King LM, Swanson SJ. Preictal pseudosleep: a new finding in psychogenic seizures. Neurology 1996; 47 (01) 63-67
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Dericioglu N, Karatas H, Geyik PO, Albakir M, Saygi S. Time distribution of seizures during long-term video-EEG monitoring. Clin Electroencephalogr 2003; 34 (04) 207-212
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Oehl B, Götz-Trabert K, Brandt A, Lehmann C, Schulze-Bonhage A. Latencies to first typical generalized spike-wave discharge in idiopathic generalized epilepsies during video-EEG monitoring. J Clin Neurophysiol 2010; 27 (01) 1-6
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Moseley BD, Dewar S, Haneef Z, Stern JM. How long is long enough? The utility of prolonged inpatient video EEG monitoring. Epilepsy Res 2015; 109: 9-12
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar