No abstract

SUMMARYIn the last 10-15 years the ILAE Commission on Classification and Terminology has been presenting proposals to modernize the current ILAE Classification of Epileptic Seizures and Epilepsies. These proposals were discussed extensively in a series of articles published recently in Epilepsia and Epilepsy Currents. There is almost universal consensus that the availability of new diagnostic techniques as also of a modern understanding of epilepsy calls for a complete revision of the Classification of Epileptic Seizures and Epilepsies. Unfortunately, however, the Commission is still not prepared to take a bold step ahead and completely revisit our approach to classification of epileptic seizures and epilepsies. In this manuscript we critically analyze the current proposals of the Commission and make suggestions for a classification system that reflects modern diagnostic techniques and our current understanding of epilepsy.

Summary This article critiques the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) 2015‐2017 classifications of epilepsy, epileptic seizures, and status epilepticus. It points out the following shortcomings of the ILAE classifications: (1) they mix semiological terms with epileptogenic zone terminology; (2) simple and widely accepted terminology has been replaced by complex terminology containing less information; (3) seizure evolution cannot be described in any detail; (4) in the four‐level epilepsy classification, level two (epilepsy category) overlaps almost 100% with diagnostic level one (seizure type); and (5) the design of different classifications with distinct frameworks for newborns, adults, and patients in status epilepticus is confusing. The authors stress the importance of validating the new ILAE classifications and feel that the decision of Epilepsia to accept only manuscripts that use the ILAE classifications is premature and regrettable.

Over the last few decades the ILAE classifications for seizures and epilepsies (ILAE-EC) have been updated repeatedly to reflect the substantial progress that has been made in diagnosis and understanding of the etiology of epilepsies and seizures and to correct some of the shortcomings of the terminology used by the original taxonomy from the 1980s. However, these proposals have not been universally accepted or used in routine clinical practice. During the same period, a separate classification known as the "Four-dimensional epilepsy classification" (4D-EC) was developed which includes a seizure classification based exclusively on ictal symptomatology, which has been tested and adapted over the years. The extensive arguments for and against these two classification systems made in the past have mainly focused on the shortcomings of each system, presuming that they are incompatible. As a further more detailed discussion of the differences seemed relatively unproductive, we here review and assess the concordance between these two approaches that has evolved over time, to consider whether a classification incorporating the best aspects of the two approaches is feasible. To facilitate further discussion in this direction we outline a concrete proposal showing how such a compromise could be accomplished, the "Integrated Epilepsy Classification". This consists of five categories derived to different degrees from both of the classification systems: 1) a "Headline" summarizing localization and etiology for the less specialized users, 2) "Seizure type(s)", 3) "Epilepsy type" (focal, generalized or unknown allowing to add the epilepsy syndrome if available), 4) "Etiology", and 5) "Comorbidities & patient preferences".

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy is likely caused by a cascade of events affecting the vegetative nervous system leading to cardiorespiratory failure and death. Multiple genetic, electrophysiological, neurochemical, and pharmacological cardiac alterations have been associated with epilepsy, which can affect autonomic regulation of the heart and predispose patients to sudden unexpected death in epilepsy. These cardiac and autonomic changes are more frequently seen in patients with longstanding and medication refractory epilepsy and may be a prerequisite for sudden unexpected death in epilepsy. Cardiac changes are also observed within the immediate periictal period in patients with and without preexisting cardiac pathology and could be the tipping point in the cascade of events compromising autonomic, respiratory, and cardiac function during an epileptic convulsion. Better understanding if and how these cardiac alterations can make a particular individual with epilepsy more susceptible to sudden unexpected death in epilepsy will hopefully lead us to more effective preventative strategies.