TY - JOUR
T1 - Light-emitting-diode and Grass PS 33 xenon lamp photic stimulators are equivalent in the assessment of photosensitivity
T2 - Clinical and research implications
AU - Dorothée Kasteleijn-Nolst, Trenité
AU - Carr, Bryony
AU - Checa-Ros, Ana
AU - Seri, Stefano
PY - 2020/9
Y1 - 2020/9
N2 - The assessment of the effect of photic stimulation is an integral component of an EEG exam and is especially important in patients referred for ascertained or suspected photosensitivity with or without a diagnosis of epilepsy. A positive test result relies on eliciting a specific abnormality defined as the "photoparoxysmal response". Reliability of this assessment is strongly influenced by technical and procedural variables, a critical one represented by the physical properties of the stimulators used. Established clinical norms are based on data acquired with the "gold-standard" Grass PS stimulators. These are no longer commercially available and have been replaced by stimulators using light emitting diode (LED) technology. To our knowledge no comparative study on their efficacy has been conducted. To address this gap, we recruited 39 patients aged 5-54 years, referred to two specialized centers with confirmed of suspected diagnosis of photosensitive epilepsy or generalized epilepsy with photosensitivity in a prospective randomized single-blind cross-over study to compare two commercially available LED-bases stimulation systems (FSA 10® and Lifeline® stimulators) against the Grass PS 33 xenon lamp device. Our findings indicate that the LED systems tested are equivalent to the Grass stimulator both in identifying the PPR in affected individuals.
AB - The assessment of the effect of photic stimulation is an integral component of an EEG exam and is especially important in patients referred for ascertained or suspected photosensitivity with or without a diagnosis of epilepsy. A positive test result relies on eliciting a specific abnormality defined as the "photoparoxysmal response". Reliability of this assessment is strongly influenced by technical and procedural variables, a critical one represented by the physical properties of the stimulators used. Established clinical norms are based on data acquired with the "gold-standard" Grass PS stimulators. These are no longer commercially available and have been replaced by stimulators using light emitting diode (LED) technology. To our knowledge no comparative study on their efficacy has been conducted. To address this gap, we recruited 39 patients aged 5-54 years, referred to two specialized centers with confirmed of suspected diagnosis of photosensitive epilepsy or generalized epilepsy with photosensitivity in a prospective randomized single-blind cross-over study to compare two commercially available LED-bases stimulation systems (FSA 10® and Lifeline® stimulators) against the Grass PS 33 xenon lamp device. Our findings indicate that the LED systems tested are equivalent to the Grass stimulator both in identifying the PPR in affected individuals.
KW - EEG
KW - Photic stimulation
KW - Photosensitive epilepsy
KW - Photosensitivity
KW - Standardized photosensitivity range
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85085752341&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0920121120300863?via%3Dihub
U2 - 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2020.106377
DO - 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2020.106377
M3 - Article
C2 - 32505867
AN - SCOPUS:85085752341
SN - 0920-1211
VL - 165
JO - Epilepsy Research
JF - Epilepsy Research
M1 - 106377
ER -