Why the study?
Seizure detection outside the clinical environment is challenging due to the lack of comfortable, reliable, and practical long-term neurophysiological monitoring devices.
Does a standalone ear-EEG device accurately detect focal-onset seizures compared to intracranial or scalp EEG in patients with refractory focal epilepsy?
Does a standalone ear-EEG device accurately detect focal-onset seizures compared to intracranial or scalp EEG in patients with refractory focal epilepsy?
A novel in-ear EEG device demonstrated high sensitivity (86.4%) and a low false detection rate for capturing focal-onset seizures compared to gold-standard EEG modalities.
In-ear EEG may enable discreet long-term monitoring; leaves open its seizure-detection accuracy versus intracranial EEG.
BACKGROUND: Seizure detection is challenging outside the clinical environment due to the lack of comfortable, reliable, and practical long-term neurophysiological monitoring devices. We developed a novel, discreet, unobstructive in-ear sensing system that enables long-term electroencephalography (EEG) recording. This is the first study we are aware of that systematically compares the seizure detection utility of in-ear EEG with that of simultaneously recorded intracranial EEG. In addition, we present a similar comparison between simultaneously recorded in-ear EEG and scalp EEG. METHODS: In this foundational research, we conducted a clinical feasibility study and validated the ability of the ear-EEG system to capture focal-onset seizures against 1255 hrs of simultaneous ear-EEG data along with scalp or intracranial EEG in 20 patients with refractory focal epilepsy (11 with scalp EEG, 8 with intracranial EEG, and 1 with both). RESULTS: In a blinded, independent review of the ear-EEG signals, two epileptologists were able to detect 86.4% of the seizures that were subsequently identified using the clinical gold standard EEG modalities, with a false detection rate of 0.1 per day, well below what has been reported for ambulatory monitoring. The few seizures not detected on the ear-EEG signals emanated from deep within the mesial temporal lobe or extra-temporally and remained very focal, without significant propagation. Following multiple sessions of recording for a median continuous wear time of 13 hrs, patients reported a high degree of tolerance for the device, with only minor adverse events reported by the scalp EEG cohort. CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary results demonstrate the potential of using ear-EEG to enable routine collection of complementary, prolonged, and remote neurophysiological evidence, which may permit real-time detection of paroxysmal events such as seizures and epileptiform discharges. This study suggests that the ear-EEG device may assist clinicians in making an epilepsy diagnosis, assessing treatment efficacy, and optimizing medication titration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Joyner et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: