Addressing the epilepsy surgery gap: Impact of community/tertiary epilepsy center collaboration

Delays in the diagnosis and surgical treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy: A cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Delay in referral for epilepsy surgery of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) is associated with decreased quality of life, worse surgical outcomes, and increased risk of sudden unexplained death in epilepsy (SUDEP). Understanding the potential causes of delays in referral and treatment is crucial for optimizing the referral and treatment process. We evaluated the treatment intervals, demographics, and clinical characteristics of patients referred for surgical evaluation at our level 4 epilepsy center in the U.S. Intermountain West.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients who underwent surgery for DRE between 2012 and 2022. Data collected included patient demographics, DRE diagnosis date, clinical characteristics, insurance status, distance from epilepsy center, date of surgical evaluation, surgical procedure, and intervals between different stages of evaluation.

RESULTS

Within our cohort of 185 patients with epilepsy (99 female, 53.5%), the mean ± standard deviation (SD) age at surgery was 38.4 ± 11.9 years. In this cohort, 95.7% of patients had received definitive epilepsy surgery (most frequently neuromodulation procedures) and 4.3% had participated in phase 2 intracranial monitoring but had not yet received definitive surgery. The median (1st-3rd quartile) intervals observed were 10.1 (3.8-21.5) years from epilepsy diagnosis to DRE diagnosis, 16.7 (6.5-28.4) years from epilepsy diagnosis to surgery, and 1.4 (0.6-4.0) years from DRE diagnosis to surgery. We observed significantly shorter median times from epilepsy diagnosis to DRE diagnosis (p < .01) and epilepsy diagnosis to surgery (p < .05) in patients who traveled further for treatment. Patients with public health insurance had a significantly longer time from DRE diagnosis to surgery (p < .001).

SIGNIFICANCE

Both shorter distance traveled to our epilepsy center and public health insurance were predictive of delays in diagnosis and treatment intervals. Timely referral of patients with DRE to specialized epilepsy centers for surgery evaluation is crucial, and identifying key factors that may delay referral is paramount to optimizing surgical outcomes.

Defining benchmark outcomes for mesial temporal lobe epilepsy surgery: A global multicenter analysis of 1119 cases

OBJECTIVE

Benchmarking has been proposed to reflect surgical quality and represents the highest standard reference values for desirable results. We sought to determine benchmark outcomes in patients after surgery for drug-resistant mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (MTLE).

METHODS

This retrospective multicenter study included patients who underwent MTLE surgery at 19 expert centers on five continents. Benchmarks were defined for 15 endpoints covering surgery and epilepsy outcome at discharge, 1 year after surgery, and the last available follow-up. Patients were risk-stratified by applying outcome-relevant comorbidities, and benchmarks were calculated for low-risk ("benchmark") cases. Respective measures were derived from the median value at each center, and the 75th percentile was considered the benchmark cutoff.

RESULTS

A total of 1119 patients with a mean age (range) of 36.7 (1-74) years and a male-to-female ratio of 1:1.1 were included. Most patients (59.2%) underwent anterior temporal lobe resection with amygdalohippocampectomy. The overall rate of complications or neurological deficits was 14.4%, with no in-hospital death. After risk stratification, 377 (33.7%) benchmark cases of 1119 patients were identified, representing 13.6%-72.9% of cases per center and leaving 742 patients in the high-risk cohort. Benchmark cutoffs for any complication, clinically apparent stroke, and reoperation rate at discharge were ≤24.6%, ≤.5%, and ≤3.9%, respectively. A favorable seizure outcome (defined as International League Against Epilepsy class I and II) was reached in 83.6% at 1 year and 79.0% at the last follow-up in benchmark cases, leading to benchmark cutoffs of ≥75.2% (1-year follow-up) and ≥69.5% (mean follow-up of 39.0 months).

SIGNIFICANCE

This study presents internationally applicable benchmark outcomes for the efficacy and safety of MTLE surgery. It may allow for comparison between centers, patient registries, and novel surgical and interventional techniques.

Anti-seizure medication treatment trials prior to pre-surgical evaluation

•

Only 17% of patients were tried on only 1or anti-seizure medications.

•

The mean number of ASMs tried at the time of referral was 5.62 (ranging from 1-15).

•

Race and ethnicity were not associated with an increased number of ASM trials.

•

Female sex was associated with a larger number of ASM trials.n.

•

ASM trials may be determined by patient/provider preferences or barriers to care.

Purpose

Our study evaluates patterns of anti-seizure medication (ASM) usage prior to pre-surgical evaluation in drug resistant epilepsy (DRE).

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of patients with DRE presenting for pre-surgical evaluation from 1/1/2017 to 12/31/2018. We abstracted demographic data, ASM usage, MRI and EEG findings, and distance from home to our center.

Results

In total, 54 patients (23 female) were included. The mean number of ASM trials at the time of pre-surgical evaluation was 5.62 (±3.3; range 1–15). A mean of 0.4 ASMs (±1.1; range 0–6) were initiated at our center prior to pre-surgical evaluation. MRI localization to regions other than the hippocampal or temporal region (p = 0.002) was associated with higher numbers of ASM trials. A trend for a larger number of ASM trials was seen for increased distance of patient primary residence from our center, right-sided ictal EEG laterality, and posterior quadrant or non-localized ictal EEG patterns.

Conclusions

Only 17% of patients were referred for pre-surgical evaluation after a trial of 1–2 ASMs. On average, patients tried 5.6 different ASMs with most of those trials predating referral to our center. Temporal lobe lesions were associated with fewer ASM trials prior to referral. Female sex was associated with an average of two more ASM trials than males. Our data do not allow us to determine how access to care, patient choice, and physician opinions impact the variability of ASM trials prior to referral for surgical evaluation. Our data indicate that delays to pre-surgical evaluation continue to occur.

Utilization of epilepsy surgery in the United States: A study of the National Inpatient Sample investigating the roles of race, socioeconomic status, and insurance

Background:

Epilepsy is estimated to affect 70 million people worldwide and is medically refractory in 30% of cases.

Methods:

This is a retrospective cross-sectional study using a US database from 2012 to 2014 to identify patients aged ≥18 years admitted to the hospital with epilepsy as the primary diagnosis. The sampled population was weighted using Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project guidelines. Procedural ICD-9 codes were utilized to stratify the sampled population into two cohorts: resective surgery and implantation or stimulation procedure.

Results:

Query of the database yielded 152,925 inpatients, of which 8535 patients underwent surgical intervention. The nonprocedural group consisted of 76,000 White patients (52.6%) and 28,390 Black patients (19.7%) while the procedural group comprised 5550 White patients (64%) and 730 Black patients (8.6%) (P < 0.001). Patients with Medicare were half as likely to receive a surgical procedure (14.8% vs. 28.4%) while patients with private insurance were twice as likely to receive a procedure (53.4% vs. 29.3%), both were statistically significant (P < 0.01). Those in the lowest median household income quartile by zip code (<$40,000) were 68% less likely to receive a procedure (21.5% vs. 31.4%) while the highest income quartile was 133% more likely to receive a procedure (26.1% vs. 19.5%). Patients from rural and urban nonteaching hospitals were, by a wide margin, less likely to receive a surgical procedure.

Conclusion:

We demonstrate an area of need and significant improvement at institutions that have the resources and capability to perform epilepsy surgery. The data show that institutions may not be performing enough epilepsy surgery as a result of racial and socioeconomic bias. Admissions for epilepsy continue to increase without a similar trend for epilepsy surgery despite its documented effectiveness. Race, socioeconomic status, and insurance all represent significant barriers in access to epilepsy surgery. The barriers can be remedied by improving referral patterns and implementing cost-effective measures to improve inpatient epilepsy services in rural and nonteaching hospitals.