Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy: Experience of neurologists in Saudi Arabia

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy: What Saudi people with epilepsy want to know-A cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is a significant cause of mortality in people with epilepsy (PWE), with an incidence of 1 per 1000 members of the population. In Saudi Arabia, no data are available that inform local clinical practitioners about the attitudes of PWE regarding SUDEP. The aim of this study was to investigate the perspectives of Saudi PWE toward SUDEP and to assess their knowledge of SUDEP.

METHODS

A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study was conducted at the neurology clinics of King Abdul-Aziz Medical City, Riyadh and Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh.

RESULTS

Of the 377 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 325 completed the questionnaire. The mean age of the respondents was 32.9 ± 12.6 years. Of the study subjects, 50.5% were male. Only 41 patients (12.6%) had heard about SUDEP. Most patients (94.5%) wanted to know about SUDEP, of whom 313 (96.3%) wanted to receive this information from a neurologist. A total of 148 patients (45.5%) thought that the appropriate time to receive information about SUDEP was after the second visit, whereas only 75 (23.1%) wanted to learn about SUDEP during the first visit. However, 69 patients (21.2%) thought that the appropriate time to be informed about SUDEP was when seizure control had become more difficult. Almost half (172, 52.9%) of the patients thought that SUDEP could be prevented.

SIGNIFICANCE

Our findings suggest that most Saudi PWE do not know about SUDEP and want to be counseled about their risk of SUDEP by their physicians. Therefore, education of Saudi PWE about SUDEP must be improved.

An evidence-based approach to provide essential and desirable components to develop surveys on Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) for doctors: A focused review

Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) is a major concern for people with epilepsy, their families, their care givers, and medical professionals. There is inconsistency in the SUDEP counselling doctors provide, compared to what is recommended in clinical guidelines. Numerous national and international surveys have highlighted how epilepsy professionals, usually doctors, deliver SUDEP risk counselling, particularly, when they deliver it and to whom. These surveys help understand the unmet need, develop suitable strategies, and raise awareness among clinicians with the eventual goal to reduce SUDEPs. However, there is no standardised survey or essential set of questions identified that can be used to evaluate SUDEP counselling practice globally. This focused review analyses the content of all published SUDEP counselling surveys for medical professionals (n=16) to date covering over 4000 doctors across over 30 countries and five continents. It identifies 36 question themes across three topics. The questions are then reviewed by an expert focus group of SUDEP communication experts including three doctors, an expert statistician and SUDEP Action, an UK based charity specialising in epilepsy deaths with a pre-set criterion. The review and focus group provide ten essential questions that should be included in all future surveys inquiring on SUDEP counselling. They could be used to evaluate current practice and compare findings over time, between services, across countries and between professional groups. They are provided as a template to download and use. The review also explores if there is a continued need in future for similar surveys to justify this activity.

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy: A pilot study on neurologists' knowledge and experience in the Eastern Mediterranean region

Background- Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) is an important concern in patients with epilepsy who are otherwise healthy. Current knowledge of SUDEP and attitudes of neurologists in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR) towards discussing SUDEP with their patients remain unknown. Objective- We aimed at assessing knowledge, attitudes and factors affecting SUDEP discussion practices of neurologists practicing in the EMR. Methodology- An electronic and paper-based survey was sent to 350 neurologists practicing in the EMR. They were questioned about the frequency, timing, and factors affecting their willingness to initiate SUDEP discussion. We also included questions about perceived patient reactions towards SUDEP discussions and neurologists' preferred way to provide SUDEP information to their patients. Results- We received 132 responses from the 350 surveys sent out (response rate 37.7%). Our results showed that only 1.5% of the neurologists discussed SUDEP with "most" of their patients and their caregivers while 55.3% "rarely" or "never" discussed it. Factors such as additional epilepsy training and more years of clinical experience did not significantly affect the frequency of SUDEP discussion (p = 0.329, p = 0.728). A significant negative association between the number of patients seen per year and the frequency of SUDEP discussion was seen (P= 0.046). Based on their selection of known risk factors, 81% of neurologists were considered as having insufficient knowledge of SUDEP. The top three perceived reactions by the neurologists on SUDEP discussion were distress (74.2%), anxiety (70.5%) and depression (65.9%). Most neurologists initiated SUDEP discussion by themselves and preferred brochures/pamphlets, websites and training sessions to provide SUDEP information. Conclusion- Neurologists in the EMR rarely discuss SUDEP, and have limited knowledge about its risk factors. Upon discussing SUDEP, they overwhelmingly receive negative reactions but not always. Based on our findings, we believe an unintended knowledge gap exists on part of the neurologists. This, coupled with a lack of trained epilepsy nurses and patient education material in regional languages can also be attributed to poor SUDEP discussion practices in the EMR.