Ictal cognitive assessment of partial seizures and pseudoseizures

William L. Bell, Yong D Park, Elizabeth A. Thompson, Rodney A. Radtke

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

35 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Previous studies suggest that responsiveness is impaired during complex partial seizures (CPS) and pseudoseizures (PS); however, to our knowledge, there has been no systematic comparison using both response and memory testing. Objective: To compare CPS with PS using ictal cognitive assessment (ICA) of responsiveness and memory. Patients and Methods: We used a nonautomated method of ICA by bedside observers, consisting of family members and staff, during video electroencephalographic monitoring to test responsiveness and memory during the ictal phase in 245 events. We assessed the adequacy of testing and compared the testing results in 31 patients during CPS and 13 patients during PS. Results: The ictal presentation of a command was successful in 58% of the events. The ictal presentation of at least 2 memory items with testing for recall after orientation was adequate in 57% of events. Impaired responsiveness was shown during both CPS and PS. However, some response was detected during 48% of PS compared with 18% of CPS (P<01). Memory items were recalled during 63% of PS but during only 4% of CPS (P<.001). The International Classification of Epileptic Seizures remained useful, but in 11 events (8%), distinguishing complex from simple partial seizures was difficult. Recall of various types of stimuli (aural-verbal vs visual-pictorial) during ICA did not correlate with the side or location of the seizure focus, but this may have been confounded by the rarity of any memory recall during CPS. Conclusions: Ictal cognitive assessment by bedside observers is practical and provides the interaction necessary for properly classifying seizures; ICA, especially memory, may help to distinguish CPS from PS.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1456-1459
Number of pages4
JournalArchives of Neurology
Volume55
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1998

Fingerprint

Seizures
Stroke
Partial Epilepsy
Ear
Epilepsy
Responsiveness
Testing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Ictal cognitive assessment of partial seizures and pseudoseizures. / Bell, William L.; Park, Yong D; Thompson, Elizabeth A.; Radtke, Rodney A.

In: Archives of Neurology, Vol. 55, No. 11, 01.01.1998, p. 1456-1459.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bell, William L. ; Park, Yong D ; Thompson, Elizabeth A. ; Radtke, Rodney A. / Ictal cognitive assessment of partial seizures and pseudoseizures. In: Archives of Neurology. 1998 ; Vol. 55, No. 11. pp. 1456-1459.
@article{f0107ed08bd246dc9b80cd34602b02d3,
title = "Ictal cognitive assessment of partial seizures and pseudoseizures",
abstract = "Background: Previous studies suggest that responsiveness is impaired during complex partial seizures (CPS) and pseudoseizures (PS); however, to our knowledge, there has been no systematic comparison using both response and memory testing. Objective: To compare CPS with PS using ictal cognitive assessment (ICA) of responsiveness and memory. Patients and Methods: We used a nonautomated method of ICA by bedside observers, consisting of family members and staff, during video electroencephalographic monitoring to test responsiveness and memory during the ictal phase in 245 events. We assessed the adequacy of testing and compared the testing results in 31 patients during CPS and 13 patients during PS. Results: The ictal presentation of a command was successful in 58{\%} of the events. The ictal presentation of at least 2 memory items with testing for recall after orientation was adequate in 57{\%} of events. Impaired responsiveness was shown during both CPS and PS. However, some response was detected during 48{\%} of PS compared with 18{\%} of CPS (P<01). Memory items were recalled during 63{\%} of PS but during only 4{\%} of CPS (P<.001). The International Classification of Epileptic Seizures remained useful, but in 11 events (8{\%}), distinguishing complex from simple partial seizures was difficult. Recall of various types of stimuli (aural-verbal vs visual-pictorial) during ICA did not correlate with the side or location of the seizure focus, but this may have been confounded by the rarity of any memory recall during CPS. Conclusions: Ictal cognitive assessment by bedside observers is practical and provides the interaction necessary for properly classifying seizures; ICA, especially memory, may help to distinguish CPS from PS.",
author = "Bell, {William L.} and Park, {Yong D} and Thompson, {Elizabeth A.} and Radtke, {Rodney A.}",
year = "1998",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1001/archneur.55.11.1456",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "55",
pages = "1456--1459",
journal = "Archives of Neurology",
issn = "0003-9942",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ictal cognitive assessment of partial seizures and pseudoseizures

AU - Bell, William L.

AU - Park, Yong D

AU - Thompson, Elizabeth A.

AU - Radtke, Rodney A.

PY - 1998/1/1

Y1 - 1998/1/1

N2 - Background: Previous studies suggest that responsiveness is impaired during complex partial seizures (CPS) and pseudoseizures (PS); however, to our knowledge, there has been no systematic comparison using both response and memory testing. Objective: To compare CPS with PS using ictal cognitive assessment (ICA) of responsiveness and memory. Patients and Methods: We used a nonautomated method of ICA by bedside observers, consisting of family members and staff, during video electroencephalographic monitoring to test responsiveness and memory during the ictal phase in 245 events. We assessed the adequacy of testing and compared the testing results in 31 patients during CPS and 13 patients during PS. Results: The ictal presentation of a command was successful in 58% of the events. The ictal presentation of at least 2 memory items with testing for recall after orientation was adequate in 57% of events. Impaired responsiveness was shown during both CPS and PS. However, some response was detected during 48% of PS compared with 18% of CPS (P<01). Memory items were recalled during 63% of PS but during only 4% of CPS (P<.001). The International Classification of Epileptic Seizures remained useful, but in 11 events (8%), distinguishing complex from simple partial seizures was difficult. Recall of various types of stimuli (aural-verbal vs visual-pictorial) during ICA did not correlate with the side or location of the seizure focus, but this may have been confounded by the rarity of any memory recall during CPS. Conclusions: Ictal cognitive assessment by bedside observers is practical and provides the interaction necessary for properly classifying seizures; ICA, especially memory, may help to distinguish CPS from PS.

AB - Background: Previous studies suggest that responsiveness is impaired during complex partial seizures (CPS) and pseudoseizures (PS); however, to our knowledge, there has been no systematic comparison using both response and memory testing. Objective: To compare CPS with PS using ictal cognitive assessment (ICA) of responsiveness and memory. Patients and Methods: We used a nonautomated method of ICA by bedside observers, consisting of family members and staff, during video electroencephalographic monitoring to test responsiveness and memory during the ictal phase in 245 events. We assessed the adequacy of testing and compared the testing results in 31 patients during CPS and 13 patients during PS. Results: The ictal presentation of a command was successful in 58% of the events. The ictal presentation of at least 2 memory items with testing for recall after orientation was adequate in 57% of events. Impaired responsiveness was shown during both CPS and PS. However, some response was detected during 48% of PS compared with 18% of CPS (P<01). Memory items were recalled during 63% of PS but during only 4% of CPS (P<.001). The International Classification of Epileptic Seizures remained useful, but in 11 events (8%), distinguishing complex from simple partial seizures was difficult. Recall of various types of stimuli (aural-verbal vs visual-pictorial) during ICA did not correlate with the side or location of the seizure focus, but this may have been confounded by the rarity of any memory recall during CPS. Conclusions: Ictal cognitive assessment by bedside observers is practical and provides the interaction necessary for properly classifying seizures; ICA, especially memory, may help to distinguish CPS from PS.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031760082&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031760082&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/archneur.55.11.1456

DO - 10.1001/archneur.55.11.1456

M3 - Article

C2 - 9823830

AN - SCOPUS:0031760082

VL - 55

SP - 1456

EP - 1459

JO - Archives of Neurology

JF - Archives of Neurology

SN - 0003-9942

IS - 11

ER -