- Browse by Subject
Browsing by Subject "Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Improving Patient-Centered Communication about Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy through Computerized Clinical Decision Support(Thieme, 2021) Grout, Randall W.; Buchhalter, Jeffrey; Patel, Anup D.; Brin, Amy; Clark, Ann A.; Holmay, Mary; Story, Tyler J.; Downs, Stephen M.; Pediatrics, School of MedicineBackground: Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is a rare but fatal risk that patients, parents, and professional societies clearly recommend discussing with patients and families. However, this conversation does not routinely happen. Objectives: This pilot study aimed to demonstrate whether computerized decision support could increase patient communication about SUDEP. Methods: A prospective before-and-after study of the effect of computerized decision support on delivery of SUDEP counseling. The intervention was a screening, alerting, education, and follow-up SUDEP module for an existing computerized decision support system (the Child Health Improvement through Computer Automation [CHICA]) in five urban pediatric primary care clinics. Families of children with epilepsy were contacted by telephone before and after implementation to assess if the clinician discussed SUDEP at their respective encounters. Results: The CHICA-SUDEP module screened 7,154 children age 0 to 21 years for seizures over 7 months; 108 (1.5%) reported epilepsy. We interviewed 101 families after primary care encounters (75 before and 26 after implementation) over 9 months. After starting CHICA-SUDEP, the number of caregivers who reported discussing SUDEP with their child's clinician more than doubled from 21% (16/75) to 46% (12/26; p = 0.03), and when the parent recalled who brought up the topic, 80% of the time it was the clinician. The differences between timing and sampling methodologies of before and after intervention cohorts could have led to potential sampling and recall bias. Conclusion: Clinician-family discussions about SUDEP significantly increased in pediatric primary care clinics after introducing a systematic, computerized screening and decision support module. These tools demonstrate potential for increasing patient-centered education about SUDEP, as well as incorporating other guideline-recommended algorithms into primary and subspecialty cares.Item Left cervical vagal nerve stimulation reduces skin sympathetic nerve activity in patients with drug resistant epilepsy(Elsevier, 2017-12) Yuan, Yuan; Hassel, Jonathan L.; Doytchinova, Anisiia; Adams, David; Wright, Keith C.; Meshberger, Chad; Chen, Lan S.; Guerra, Maria P.; Shen, Changyu; Lin, Shien-Fong; Everett IV, Thomas H.; Salanova, Vincenta; Chen, Peng-Sheng; Neurology, School of MedicineBACKGROUND: We recently reported that skin sympathetic nerve activity (SKNA) can be used to estimate sympathetic tone in humans. In animal models, vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) can damage the stellate ganglion, reduce stellate ganglion nerve activity, and suppress cardiac arrhythmia. Whether VNS can suppress sympathetic tone in humans remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that VNS suppresses SKNA in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. METHODS: ECG patch electrodes were used to continuously record SKNA in 26 patients with drug-resistant epilepsy who were admitted for video electroencephalographic monitoring. Among them, 6 (2 men, age 40 ± 11 years) were previously treated with VNS and 20 (7 men, age 37 ± 8 years) were not. The signals from ECG leads I and II were filtered to detect SKNA. RESULTS: VNS had an on-time of 30 seconds and off-time of 158 ± 72 seconds, with output of 1.92 ± 0.42 mA at 24.17 ± 2.01 Hz. Average SKNA during VNS off-time was 1.06 μV (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93-1.18) in lead I and 1.13 μV (95% CI 0.99-1.27) in lead II, which was significantly lower than 1.38 μV (95% CI 1.01-1.75; P = .036) and 1.38 μV (95% CI 0.98-1.78; P = .035) in the control group, respectively. Heart rate was 65 bpm (95% CI 59-71) in the VNS group, which was significantly lower than 77 bpm (95% CI 71-83) in the control group. CONCLUSION: Patients with VNS had significantly lower SKNA than those without VNS.