IntroductionSeizure detection devices (SDDs) may lower the risk of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) and provide reassurance to people with epilepsy and their relatives. We aimed to... Show moreIntroductionSeizure detection devices (SDDs) may lower the risk of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) and provide reassurance to people with epilepsy and their relatives. We aimed to explore the perspectives of those receiving secondary care on nocturnal SDDs and epilepsy in general.Materials and methodsWe recruited adults with tonic or tonic-clonic seizures who had at least one nocturnal seizure in the preceding year. We used semi-structured interviews and questionnaires to explore their views on SDDs and their experiences of living with epilepsy. None of the participants had any previous experience with SDDs. We analyzed the data using qualitative content analysis.ResultsEleven participants were included with a nocturnal seizure frequency ranging from once every few weeks to less than once a year. Some participants experienced little burden of disease, whereas others were extremely impaired. Opinions on the perceived benefit of seizure detection varied widely and did not always match the clinical profile. Some participants with high SUDEP risk displayed no interest at all, whereas others with a low risk for unattended seizures displayed a strong interest. Reasons for wanting to use SDDs included providing reassurance, SUDEP prevention, and improving night rest. Reasons for not wanting to use SDDs included not being able to afford it, having to deal with false alarms, not having anyone to act upon the alarms, having a relative that will notice any seizures, not feeling like the epilepsy is severe enough to warrant SDD usage or not trusting the device.ConclusionsThe interest in nocturnal seizure detection varies among participants with low seizure frequencies and does not always match the added value one would expect based on the clinical profile. Further developments should account for the heterogeneity in user groups. Show less
Objectives: The impact of the newly introduced cochlear implantation criteria of the United Kingdom and Flanders (Dutch speaking part of Belgium) was examined in the patient population of a... Show moreObjectives: The impact of the newly introduced cochlear implantation criteria of the United Kingdom and Flanders (Dutch speaking part of Belgium) was examined in the patient population of a tertiary referral center in the Netherlands. We compared the patients who would be included/excluded under the new versus old criteria in relation to the actual improvement in speech understanding after implantation in our center. We also performed a sensitivity analysis to examine the effectiveness of the different preoperative assessment approaches used in the United Kingdom and Flanders. Design: The selection criteria were based on preoperative pure-tone audiometry at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz and a speech perception test (SPT) with and without best-aided hearing aids. Postoperatively, the same SPT was conducted to assess the benefit in speech understanding. Results: The newly introduced criteria in Flanders and the United Kingdom were less restrictive, resulting in greater percentages of patients implanted with CI (increase of 30%), and sensitivity increase of 31%. The preoperative best-aided SPT, used by both countries, had the highest diagnostic ability to indicate a postoperative improvement of speech understanding. We observed that patient selection was previously dominated by the pure-tone audiometry criteria in both countries, whereas speech understanding became more important in their new criteria. Among patients excluded by the new criteria, seven of eight (the United Kingdom and Flanders) did exhibit improved postoperative speech understanding. Conclusions: The new selection criteria of the United Kingdom and Flanders led to increased numbers of postlingually deafened adults benefitting from CI. The new British and Flemish criteria depended on the best-aided SPT with the highest diagnostic ability. Notably, the new criteria still led to the rejection of candidates who would be expected to gain considerably in speech understanding after implantation. Show less
Loymans, R.J.B.; Debray, T.P.A.; Honkoop, P.J.; Termeer, E.H.; Snoeck-Stroband, J.B.; Schermer, T.R.J.; ... ; Riet, G. ter 2018
