“New Device Promises Better Seizure Monitoring for Epilepsy Patients”
A recent study explored a promising new method for monitoring seizures in patients with hard-to-treat epilepsy using a subcutaneous electroencephalographic device, known as sqEEG. The purpose? To see how well this device could track seizure activity over an extended period and how safe it was for patients. It involved five individuals with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, who were implanted with this innovative device for ultra long-term monitoring.
In the first phase of the study, researchers compared the sqEEG’s ability to detect seizures against traditional scalp EEG readings while the patients were monitored in a clinical setting. They found that the visual scoring method (v-sqEEG) successfully detected all seizures for all patients involved. On the other hand, a semi-automated scoring method (E-sqEEG) performed well for three of the five patients, but struggled with the remaining two, highlighting that the effectiveness of E-sqEEG depended on specific features of the seizure-related brain activity.
As the study progressed into the outpatient phase, lasting between three to six months, researchers continued to analyze the data monthly. They discovered a perfect match between the traditional and semi-automated seizure detection methods for those three patients previously mentioned. However, the other two patients had varying success rates with E-sqEEG, detecting anywhere from 0% to 83% of seizures compared to traditional methods. Interestingly, patients’ own diary accounts of their seizure frequency were often lower than what v-sqEEG indicated, which suggested a gap in self-reporting.
Ultimately, the study underscored the potential of the sqEEG system as a reliable way to gather critical information about seizure activity. While the overall monitoring was deemed feasible and well-tolerated, it did show that the semi-automated detection method’s effectiveness varied significantly between patients. Additionally, treatment adjustments based on the monitoring data did not always lead to the expected improvements and, in some cases, might even have worsened their condition. The only side effect noted was a localized infection at the implant site for one patient, which suggests that, while promising, there are still important considerations for safety and effectiveness to keep in mind.