Indeterminate EMU admissions

Does repeating the admission help?

Srijana Zarkou, Madeline Grade, Matthew T. Hoerth, Katherine H. Noe, Joseph I. Sirven, Joseph F. Drazkowski

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU) admissions during 2007-2009 at Mayo Clinic Hospital Arizona were reviewed. Of the 106 indeterminate admissions, 13 (12%) went on to have a second admission. During the second admission, 8 (62%) were diagnosed. Five patients went on to have a third or fourth admission, with none of them receiving a diagnosis. Nineteen (18%) patients had ambulatory EEG monitoring after an indeterminate admission, with only one (5%) receiving a diagnosis after ambulatory EEG monitoring. Even in patients who were initially indeterminate, medication management changed 37% of the time. Admission to the EMU was helpful for spell classification, with 80% of the patients receiving a diagnosis after the first admission. Based on this study, a second admission should be considered if no diagnosis is reached after the first admission. If no diagnosis is made after the second EMU admission, subsequent admissions are unlikely to produce a definitive diagnosis.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)706-708
Number of pages3
JournalEpilepsy and Behavior
Volume20
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2011

Fingerprint

Epilepsy
Ambulatory Monitoring
Electroencephalography

Keywords

  • Epilepsy monitoring unit
  • Long-term monitoring
  • Seizure classification

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Behavioral Neuroscience
  • Neurology

Cite this

Zarkou, S., Grade, M., Hoerth, M. T., Noe, K. H., Sirven, J. I., & Drazkowski, J. F. (2011). Indeterminate EMU admissions: Does repeating the admission help? Epilepsy and Behavior, 20(4), 706-708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2011.01.032

Indeterminate EMU admissions : Does repeating the admission help? / Zarkou, Srijana; Grade, Madeline; Hoerth, Matthew T.; Noe, Katherine H.; Sirven, Joseph I.; Drazkowski, Joseph F.

In: Epilepsy and Behavior, Vol. 20, No. 4, 04.2011, p. 706-708.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Zarkou, S, Grade, M, Hoerth, MT, Noe, KH, Sirven, JI & Drazkowski, JF 2011, 'Indeterminate EMU admissions: Does repeating the admission help?', Epilepsy and Behavior, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 706-708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2011.01.032
Zarkou S, Grade M, Hoerth MT, Noe KH, Sirven JI, Drazkowski JF. Indeterminate EMU admissions: Does repeating the admission help? Epilepsy and Behavior. 2011 Apr;20(4):706-708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2011.01.032
Zarkou, Srijana ; Grade, Madeline ; Hoerth, Matthew T. ; Noe, Katherine H. ; Sirven, Joseph I. ; Drazkowski, Joseph F. / Indeterminate EMU admissions : Does repeating the admission help?. In: Epilepsy and Behavior. 2011 ; Vol. 20, No. 4. pp. 706-708.
@article{9a9d1c86b5374e249e36f4880cc073c6,
title = "Indeterminate EMU admissions: Does repeating the admission help?",
abstract = "Epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU) admissions during 2007-2009 at Mayo Clinic Hospital Arizona were reviewed. Of the 106 indeterminate admissions, 13 (12{\%}) went on to have a second admission. During the second admission, 8 (62{\%}) were diagnosed. Five patients went on to have a third or fourth admission, with none of them receiving a diagnosis. Nineteen (18{\%}) patients had ambulatory EEG monitoring after an indeterminate admission, with only one (5{\%}) receiving a diagnosis after ambulatory EEG monitoring. Even in patients who were initially indeterminate, medication management changed 37{\%} of the time. Admission to the EMU was helpful for spell classification, with 80{\%} of the patients receiving a diagnosis after the first admission. Based on this study, a second admission should be considered if no diagnosis is reached after the first admission. If no diagnosis is made after the second EMU admission, subsequent admissions are unlikely to produce a definitive diagnosis.",
keywords = "Epilepsy monitoring unit, Long-term monitoring, Seizure classification",
author = "Srijana Zarkou and Madeline Grade and Hoerth, {Matthew T.} and Noe, {Katherine H.} and Sirven, {Joseph I.} and Drazkowski, {Joseph F.}",
year = "2011",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1016/j.yebeh.2011.01.032",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "20",
pages = "706--708",
journal = "Epilepsy and Behavior",
issn = "1525-5050",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Indeterminate EMU admissions

T2 - Does repeating the admission help?

AU - Zarkou, Srijana

AU - Grade, Madeline

AU - Hoerth, Matthew T.

AU - Noe, Katherine H.

AU - Sirven, Joseph I.

AU - Drazkowski, Joseph F.

PY - 2011/4

Y1 - 2011/4

N2 - Epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU) admissions during 2007-2009 at Mayo Clinic Hospital Arizona were reviewed. Of the 106 indeterminate admissions, 13 (12%) went on to have a second admission. During the second admission, 8 (62%) were diagnosed. Five patients went on to have a third or fourth admission, with none of them receiving a diagnosis. Nineteen (18%) patients had ambulatory EEG monitoring after an indeterminate admission, with only one (5%) receiving a diagnosis after ambulatory EEG monitoring. Even in patients who were initially indeterminate, medication management changed 37% of the time. Admission to the EMU was helpful for spell classification, with 80% of the patients receiving a diagnosis after the first admission. Based on this study, a second admission should be considered if no diagnosis is reached after the first admission. If no diagnosis is made after the second EMU admission, subsequent admissions are unlikely to produce a definitive diagnosis.

AB - Epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU) admissions during 2007-2009 at Mayo Clinic Hospital Arizona were reviewed. Of the 106 indeterminate admissions, 13 (12%) went on to have a second admission. During the second admission, 8 (62%) were diagnosed. Five patients went on to have a third or fourth admission, with none of them receiving a diagnosis. Nineteen (18%) patients had ambulatory EEG monitoring after an indeterminate admission, with only one (5%) receiving a diagnosis after ambulatory EEG monitoring. Even in patients who were initially indeterminate, medication management changed 37% of the time. Admission to the EMU was helpful for spell classification, with 80% of the patients receiving a diagnosis after the first admission. Based on this study, a second admission should be considered if no diagnosis is reached after the first admission. If no diagnosis is made after the second EMU admission, subsequent admissions are unlikely to produce a definitive diagnosis.

KW - Epilepsy monitoring unit

KW - Long-term monitoring

KW - Seizure classification

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79954622481&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79954622481&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.yebeh.2011.01.032

DO - 10.1016/j.yebeh.2011.01.032

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 706

EP - 708

JO - Epilepsy and Behavior

JF - Epilepsy and Behavior

SN - 1525-5050

IS - 4

ER -