Commentary on stimulus‐induced arousal with transient electroencephalographic improvement distinguishes nonictal from ictal generalized periodic discharges
Here we critique recent arguments proposing to distinguish ictal from non-ictal generalized periodic discharges (GPDs) based on etiology and stimulation response, arguing that these are unreliable. We advocate for an empirical approach to GPDs: describe objectively, interpret through medication trials, and base further treatment on response. We call for evidence-based approaches considering meaningful clinical outcomes.
Authors
- Michael Brandon Westover (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4803-312X)
- Aaron F. Struck (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9103-1798)
- Marcus Ng (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6258-5943)
- Sahar F. Zafar (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5252-5376)
- Brandon Foreman (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5418-674X)
- Jennifer Kim (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3564-9892)
Institutions
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Yale University (US)
- Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
- University of Manitoba (CA)
- University of Cincinnati (US)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Epilepsia
- Published
- 2024-10-18
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1111/epi.18159
- Primary Topic
- EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00
Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Research Manitoba
- Eisai
- Mitacs
- Eisai Canada
- National Institutes of Health
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research