Advertisement

Neurocritical Care

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 413–418 | Cite as

Evaluation of STESS, mRSTESS, and EMSE to Predict High Disability and Mortality at Hospital Discharge in Ecuadorian Patients with Status Epilepticus

  • Dannys Rivero Rodríguez
  • Claudio Scherle Matamoros
  • Kimberly Sam
  • Daniela DiCapua Sacoto
  • Nelson Maldonado Samaniego
  • Yanelis Pernas
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Adequate identification of the severity of status epilepticus (SE) contributes to individualized treatment. The scales most widely used for this purpose are: Status Epilepticus Severity Score (STESS), Epidemiology-Based Mortality Score in Status Epilepticus (EMSE) and modified Rankin Scale STESS (mRSTESS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the STESS, EMSE and mRSTESS scales to predict high disability and hospital mortality at discharge (HD/HM).

Methods

A prospective study was conducted in which total of 41 patients were registered from November 2015 to January 2018 at Eugenio Espejo Hospital. Clinical variables such as age, sex, clinical status at the beginning of the SE, initial symptom of SE, as well as the STESS, mRSTESS and EMSE variant scales were studied at the time of the diagnosis of SE.

Results

A total of 41 patients were evaluated, of which 8 (19.5%) had HD at hospital discharge and died 13 (31.7%) during their care. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to predict HD/HM was 0.71 (95% CI (confidence interval) 0.55–0.87), 0.81 (95% CI 0.67–0.94), 0.89 (95% CI 0.79–0.99), 0.90 (95% CI 0.80–1.0), 0.89 (95% CI 0.78–0.99) for the STESS, mRSTESS, EMSE-EAC (etiology, age, comorbidities), EMSE-EACEG (etiology, age, comorbidities, electroencephalography) and EMSE-ECLEG (etiology, age, level of consciousness at pre-treatment, electroencephalography), variants of EMSE, respectively. The binary logistic regression demonstrated how the following cut-off points were determined: STESS OR (odd ratio) 4.80 (p = 0.02), mRSTESS OR 7.89 (p = 0.00), EMSE-EAC OR 22.16 (p = 0.00), EMSE-ECLEG OR 18.00 (p = 0.00), EMSE-EACEG OR 14 (p = 0.00).

Conclusions

All of the evaluated scales (STESS, mRSTESS, and EMSE) were shown to be useful in predicting HD/HM. EMSE was observed to be the most effective of the scales, with relative similarities among the variants.

Keywords

STESS mRSTESS EMSE Status epilepticus Mortality High disability 

Notes

Author Contributions

DRR designed the study, collected and processed the data, performed the statistical analyses, and drafted the manuscript. CSM participated in treatment of the patients, collected the data, and reviewed the final manuscript. KS drafted the manuscript and performed the analysis of the results. DDS participated in treatment of the patients, collected the data, and reviewed the final manuscript. NMS obtained institutional permissions to carry out the study, participated in treatment of the patients, and reviewed the final manuscript. YP performed the statistical analyses.

Source of support

This research received no external funding.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare there were no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

The execution and publication of this study was approved by the ethical committee of the institution.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Neligan A, Shorvon SD. Frequency and prognosis of convulsive status epilepticus of different causes: a systematic review. Arch Neurol. 2010;67:931–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rossetti AO, Logroscino G, Bromfield EB. A clinical score for prognosis of status epilepticus. Neurology. 2006;66:1736–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leitinger M, Holler Y, Kalss G, Rohracher A, Novak HF, Hofler J, et al. Epidemiology-based mortality score in status epilepticus (EMSE). Neurocrit Care. 2015;22:273–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    González-Cuevas M, Santamarina E, Toledo M, Quintana M, Sala J, Sueiras M, et al. A new clinical score for the prognosis of status epilepticus in adults. Eur J Neurol. 2016;23(10):1534–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rankin J. Cerebral vascular accidents in patients over the age of 60. II. Prognosis. Scott Med J. 1957;2(5):200–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kang BS, Kim DW, Kim KK, Moon HJ, Kim YS, Kim HK, et al. Prediction of mortality and functional outcome from status epilepticus and independent external validation of STESS and EMSE scores. Crit Care. 2016;20:25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pacha MS, Orellana L, Silva E, Ernst G, Pantiu F, Quiroga Narvaez J, et al. Role of EMSE and STESS scores in the outcome evaluation of status epilepticus. Epilepsy Behav. 2016;64(Pt A):140–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Trinka E, Cock H, Hesdorffer D, Rossetti AO, Scheffer IE, Shinnar S, et al. A definition and classification of status epilepticus—report of the ILAE Task Force on Classification of Status Epilepticus. Epilepsia. 2015;56(10):1515–23.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leitinger M, Beniczky S, Rohracher A, Gardella E, Kalss G, Qerama E, et al. Salzburg consensus criteria for non-convulsive status epilepticus—approach to clinical application. Epilepsy Behav. 2015;49:158–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of impaired consciousness and coma: a practical scale. Lancet. 1974;13–2(7872):81–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Commission on Epidemiology and Prognosis, International League Against Epilepsy. Guidelines for epidemiologic studies on epilepsy. Epilepsia. 1993;34:592–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Claassen J, Lokin JK, Fitzsimmons BF, Mendelsohn FA, Mayer SA. Predictors of functional disability and mortality after status epilepticus. Neurology. 2002;58(1):139–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Belluzzo M, Furlanis G, Stragapede L. Predictors of functional disability at hospital discharge after status epilepticus. Epilepsy Res. 2015;110:179–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rossetti AO, Hurwitz S, Logroscino G, Bromfield EB. Prognosis of status epilepticus: role of aetiology, age, and consciousness impairment at presentation. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2006;77(5):611–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chin RF, Neville BG, Scott RC. A systematic review of the epidemiology of status epilepticus. Eur J Neurol. 2004;11(12):800–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rossetti AO, Logroscino G, Milligan TA, Michaelides C, Ruffieux C, Bromfield EB. Status Epilepticus Severity Score (STESS): a tool to orient early treatment strategy. J Neurol. 2008;255(10):1561–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sutter R, Kaplan PW, Rüegg S. Independent external validation of the status epilepticus severity score. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(12):e475–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leitinger M, Kalss G, Rohracher A, Pilz G, Novak H, Höfler J, Deak I, et al. Predicting outcome of status epilepticus. Epilepsy Behav. 2015;49:126–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Giovannini G, Monti G, Tondelli M, Marudi A, Valzania F, Leitinger M, et al. Mortality, morbidity and refractoriness prediction in status epilepticus: comparison of STESS and EMSE scores. Seizure. 2017;46:31–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and Neurocritical Care Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dannys Rivero Rodríguez
    • 1
  • Claudio Scherle Matamoros
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kimberly Sam
    • 2
  • Daniela DiCapua Sacoto
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nelson Maldonado Samaniego
    • 2
  • Yanelis Pernas
    • 3
  1. 1.Neurology DepartmentEugenio Espejo HospitalQuitoEcuador
  2. 2.San Francisco University of Quito (USFQ)QuitoEcuador
  3. 3.Internal Medicine DepartmentAndrade Marin HospitalQuitoEcuador

Personalised recommendations