Journal of Neurology

, Volume 253, Issue 3, pp 328–332 | Cite as

Usefulness of prolonged video–EEG monitoring and provocative procedure with saline injection for the diagnosis of non epileptic seizures of psychogenic origin

ORIGINAL COMMUNICATION

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the usefulness of long term video–EEG monitoring (VEEGM) and intravenous injection of saline solution (IVISS) for the diagnosis of non epileptic seizures of psychogenic origin (PNES).

Background

PNES are common among patients referred to an epilepsy center. Long term VEEGM remains the gold standard method for assessing the correct diagnosis. However, spontaneous PNES do not always occur during VEEGM, and a provocative test is often required. Although IVISS is the most commonly performed method, its usefulness is still debated.

Methods

We performed a long term VEEGM and an IVISS test the last day of the monitoring to each patient admitted to the Epilepsy Monitoring Unit of Erasme Hospital, Brussels, between October 2001 and February 2005 for suspicion of PNES. Patient charts were retrospectively reviewed.

Results

Of a total of 138 patients admitted to our center, 28 (20.3%) were referred for suspicion of PNES. There were 7 men and 21 women with a mean age of 35 years. Twenty–one patients (75%) had PNES during the VEEGM. Ten patients (36 %) had spontaneous PNES and positive IVISS.Nine patients (32 %) had no spontaneous PNES but a positive IVISS. Two patients (7 %) had spontaneous PNES and a negative IVISS.Among patients with PNES, 8 had also epileptic findings.

Conclusion

IVISS is a useful diagnostic tool since it was the only way to confirm the diagnosis of PNES in 32% of our patients. We suggest that investigation for the diagnosis of PNES should always include both a prolonged VEEGM and an IVISS test.

Key words

non epileptic seizure of psychogenic origin saline injection suggestion pseudoseizure provocative test 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Benbadis SR (2001) Provocative techniques should be used for the diagnosis of psychogenic nonepileptic seizures. Arch Neurol 58:2063–2065CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benbadis SR, Johnson K, Anthony K, Caines G, Hess G, Jackson C, Vale FL, Tatum WO (2000) Induction of psychogenic nonepileptic seizures without placebo. Neurology 55:1904–1905PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benbadis SR, Siegrist K, Tatum WO, Heriaud L, Anthony K (2004) Shortterm outpatient EEG video with induction in the diagnosis of psychogenic seizures. Neurology 63:1728–1730PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhatia M, Sinha PK, Jain S, Padma MV, Maheshwari MC (1997) Usefulness of short–term video EEG recording with saline induction in pseudoseizures. Acta Neurol Scand 95:363–366PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohen LM, Howard GF, III, Bongar B (1992) Provocation of pseudoseizures by psychiatric interview during EEG and video monitoring. Int J Psychiatry Med 22:131–140PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cragar DE, Berry DT, Fakhoury TA, Cibula JE, Schmitt FA (2002) A review of diagnostic techniques in the differential diagnosis of epileptic and nonepileptic seizures. Neuropsychol Rev 12:31–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Devinsky O, Fisher R (1996) Ethical use of placebos and provocative testing in diagnosing nonepileptic seizures. Neurology 47:866–870PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gates JR (2001) Provocative testing should not be used for nonepileptic seizures. Arch Neurol 58:2065–2066CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Iriarte J, Parra J, Urrestarazu E, Kuyk J (2003) Controversies in the diagnosis and management of psychogenic pseudoseizures. Epilepsy Behav 4:354–359CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lancman ME, Asconape JJ, Craven WJ, Howard G, Penry JK (1994) Predictive value of induction of psychogenic seizures by suggestion. Ann Neurol 35:359–361CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lempert T, Dieterich M, Huppert D, Brandt T (1990) Psychogenic disorders in neurology: frequency and clinical spectrum. Acta Neurol Scand 82:335–340PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lesser RP (1996) Psychogenic seizures. Neurology 46:1499–1507PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Muller T, Merschhemke M, Dehnicke C, Sanders M, Meencke H–J (2002) Improving diagnostic procedure and treatment in patients with non–epileptic seizures (NES). Seizure 11:85–89 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Parra J, Kanner AM, Iriarte J, Gil–Nagel A (1998) When should induction protocols be used in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with paroxysmal events? Epilepsia 39:863–867PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Prochazka, T, Vojtech, Z, Mareckova, I, and Kalina, M (2004) Induction of epileptic seizure by suggestive saline injection: a case report. Epilepsia 40 (Suppl 3):164Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reuber M, Elger CE (2003) Psychogenic nonepileptic seizures: review and update. Epilepsy Behav 4:205–216CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Slater JD, Brown MC, Jacobs W, Ramsay RE (1995) Induction of pseudoseizures with intravenous saline placebo. Epilepsia 36:580–585CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Walczak TS, Papacostas S, Williams DT, Scheuer ML, Lebowitz N, Notarfrancesco A (1995) Outcome after diagnosis of psychogenic nonepileptic seizures. Epilepsia 36:1131–1137PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Walczak TS, Williams DT, Berten W (1994) Utility and reliability of placebo infusion in the evaluation of patients with seizures. Neurology 44:394–399PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zaidi A, Crampton S, Clough P, Fitzpatrick A, Scheepers B (1999) Head–up tilting is a useful provocative test for psychogenic non–epileptic seizures. Seizure 8:353–355PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Steinkopff-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hôpital Erasme-NeurologieBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations