Publication

Detection of generalized tonic–clonic seizures using surface electromyographic monitoring

Downloadable Content

Persistent URL
Last modified
  • 03/05/2025
Type of Material
Authors
    Jonathan J. Halford, Medical University of South CarolinaMichael R. Sperling, Thomas Jefferson University HospitalDileep R. Nair, Cleveland Clinic FoundationDennis J. Dlugos, The Children's Hospital of PhiladelphiaWilliam O. Tatum, Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, FloridaJay Harvey, UT Southwestern Medical SchoolJacqueline A. French, NYU Langone Medical CenterJohn R. Pollard, University of PennsylvaniaRaymond Faught Jr, Emory UniversityKatherine H. Noe, Mayo Clinic Scottsdale-Phoenix, ArizonaThomas R. Henry, Fairview Health ServiceGina M. Jetter, Northeast Texas Neurology AssociatesOctavian V. Lie, University of Texas Health Science Center at San AntonioLola C. Morgan, University of Texas Health Science Center at San AntonioMichael R. Girouard, Brain Sentinel Inc.Damon P. Cardenas, Brain Sentinel Inc.Luke E. Whitmire, Brain Sentinel Inc.Jose E. Cavazos, Brain Sentinel Inc.
Language
  • English
Date
  • 2017-11-01
Publisher
  • Wiley: 12 months
Publication Version
Copyright Statement
  • © 2017 The Authors.
License
Final Published Version (URL)
Title of Journal or Parent Work
ISSN
  • 0013-9580
Volume
  • 58
Issue
  • 11
Start Page
  • 1861
End Page
  • 1869
Grant/Funding Information
  • This study was funded by Brain Sentinel in San Antonio, Texas.
Supplemental Material (URL)
Abstract
  • Epilepsia published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International League Against Epilepsy. Objective: A prospective multicenter phase III trial was undertaken to evaluate the performance and tolerability in the epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU) of an investigational wearable surface electromyographic (sEMG) monitoring system for the detection of generalized tonic–clonic seizures (GTCSs). Methods: One hundred ninety-nine patients with a history of GTCSs who were admitted to the EMU in 11 level IV epilepsy centers for clinically indicated video-electroencephalographic monitoring also received sEMG monitoring with a wearable device that was worn on the arm over the biceps muscle. All recorded sEMG data were processed at a central site using a previously developed detection algorithm. Detected GTCSs were compared to events verified by a majority of three expert reviewers. Results: For all subjects, the detection algorithm detected 35 of 46 (76%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.61–0.87) of the GTCSs, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.03 and a mean false alarm rate (FAR) of 2.52 per 24 h. For data recorded while the device was placed over the midline of the biceps muscle, the system detected 29 of 29 GTCSs (100%, 95% CI = 0.88–1.00), with a detection delay averaging 7.70 s, a PPV of 6.2%, and a mean FAR of 1.44 per 24 h. Mild to moderate adverse events were reported in 28% (55 of 199) of subjects and led to study withdrawal in 9% (17 of 199). These adverse events consisted mostly of skin irritation caused by the electrode patch that resolved without treatment. No serious adverse events were reported. Significance: Detection of GTCSs using an sEMG monitoring device on the biceps is feasible. Proper positioning of this device is important for accuracy, and for some patients, minimizing the number of false positives may be challenging.
Author Notes
  • Address correspondence to Jonathan J. Halford, Medical University of South Carolina, 96 Jonathan Lucas St., Suite 307 CSB, MSC606, Charleston, SC 29425, U.S.A. E-mail: halfordj@musc.edu
Research Categories
  • Biology, Neuroscience
  • Biology, General

Tools

Relations

In Collection:

Items