Ictal verbal help-seeking: Occurrence and the underlying etiology.

PURPOSE: Ictal verbal help-seeking has never been systematically studied before. In this study, we evaluated a series of patients with ictal verbal help-seeking to characterize its frequency and underlying etiology. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all the long-term video-EEG reports from Jefferson Comprehensive Epilepsy Center over a 12-year period (2004-2015) for the occurrence of the term help in the text body. All the extracted reports were reviewed and patients with at least one episode of documented ictal verbal help-seeking in epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU) were studied. For each patient, the data were reviewed from the electronic medical records, EMU report, and neuroimaging records. RESULTS: During the study period, 5133 patients were investigated in our EMU. Twelve patients (0.23%) had at least one episode of documented ictal verbal help-seeking. Nine patients (six women and three men) had epilepsy and three patients (two women and one man) had psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES). Seven out of nine patients with epilepsy had temporal lobe epilepsy; six patients had right temporal lobe epilepsy. CONCLUSION: Ictal verbal help-seeking is a rare finding among patients evaluated in epilepsy monitoring units. Ictal verbal help-seeking may suggest that seizures arise in or propagate to the right temporal lobe

AR2, a novel automatic muscle artifact reduction software method for ictal EEG interpretation: Validation and comparison of performance with commercially available software.

Objective: To develop a novel software method (AR2) for reducing muscle contamination of ictal scalp electroencephalogram (EEG), and validate this method on the basis of its performance in comparison to a commercially available software method (AR1) to accurately depict seizure-onset location. Methods: A blinded investigation used 23 EEG recordings of seizures from 8 patients. Each recording was uninterpretable with digital filtering because of muscle artifact and processed using AR1 and AR2 and reviewed by 26 EEG specialists. EEG readers assessed seizure-onset time, lateralization, and region, and specified confidence for each determination. The two methods were validated on the basis of the number of readers able to render assignments, confidence, the intra-class correlation (ICC), and agreement with other clinical findings. Results: Among the 23 seizures, two-thirds of the readers were able to delineate seizure-onset time in 10 of 23 using AR1, and 15 of 23 using AR2 (

AR2, a novel automatic muscle artifact reduction software method for ictal EEG interpretation: Validation and comparison of performance with commercially available software.

Objective: To develop a novel software method (AR2) for reducing muscle contamination of ictal scalp electroencephalogram (EEG), and validate this method on the basis of its performance in comparison to a commercially available software method (AR1) to accurately depict seizure-onset location. Methods: A blinded investigation used 23 EEG recordings of seizures from 8 patients. Each recording was uninterpretable with digital filtering because of muscle artifact and processed using AR1 and AR2 and reviewed by 26 EEG specialists. EEG readers assessed seizure-onset time, lateralization, and region, and specified confidence for each determination. The two methods were validated on the basis of the number of readers able to render assignments, confidence, the intra-class correlation (ICC), and agreement with other clinical findings. Results: Among the 23 seizures, two-thirds of the readers were able to delineate seizure-onset time in 10 of 23 using AR1, and 15 of 23 using AR2 (p<0.01). Fewer readers could lateralize seizure-onset (p<0.05). The confidence measures of the assignments were low (probable-unlikely), but increased using AR2 (p<0.05). The ICC for identifying the time of seizure-onset was 0.15 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.11-0.18) using AR1 and 0.26 (95% CI 0.21-0.30) using AR2.  The EEG interpretations were often consistent with behavioral, neurophysiological, and neuro-radiological findings, with left sided assignments correct in 95.9% (CI 85.7-98.9%, n=4) of cases using AR2, and 91.9% (77.0-97.5%) (n=4) of cases using AR1. Conclusions: EEG artifact reduction methods for localizing seizure-onset does not result in high rates of interpretability, reader confidence, and inter-reader agreement. However, the assignments by groups of readers are often congruent with other clinical data. Utilization of the AR2 software method may improve the validity of ictal EEG artifact reduction