No abstract

BackgroundEpilepsy monitoring unit (EMU) is a growing service that allows physicians to evaluate, diagnose, and manage epilepsy in a safe and cost-effective way. However, observations have indicated that the EMU is being underutilized by general neurology practice, possibly due to the lack of access and specific criteria known to all neurologists. There is limited data as of yet to support these observations. This study reviewed the rate of referral to the EMU from outpatient general neurology clinics at our institution. MethodsIn this retrospective study, records of 350 patients, 18 years or older with a diagnosis or diagnostic workup of epilepsy, managed by neurologists who did not specialize in epilepsy, were reviewed. We classified patients into three groups: ineligible for EMU referral, eligible and referred to EMU, and eligible but not referred to EMU based on six criteria namely characterization, classification, localization, determination of seizure frequency, medication adjustment, and differentiation between seizures and medication side effects. ResultsOur results demonstrated that 36.7% of patients who did meet the criteria were not referred to EMU. The most common criteria for patient referral in both groups, referred and not referred, was the characterization of seizures as epileptic or functional. ConclusionOur results show that EMU is underutilized by our general neurology clinics. Providing more information and increased awareness about criteria for long-term monitoring in EMU can improve the utility of this valuable tool and would be beneficial to patient care.

Introduction Proximal MCA occlusion has variable presentation and clinical course, ranging from MCA syndrome with completed infarct at presentation to asymptomatic, discovered incidentally on imaging. This variability is likely dictated by variable collateral circulation that ultimately fails on variable time courses. For discussion we can divide these into (1) rapid progressors, (2) standard, (3) slow progressors, (4) situationally symptomatic, and (5) asymptomatic. There is clear evidence for the role of endovascular therapy for those who are significantly symptomatic and progress along an acute timeline when combined with imaging criteria (1 and 2), but there is no clear guidance for those patients who progress slowly or are minimally symptomatic (3‐5). Methods We present selected cases of patients with left MCA occlusion from groups 3–5 along with their presentation and collateral flow as assessed by non‐invasive imaging and DSA. Results Case 1. Slow Progressor. A 63‐year‐old woman with past occipital lobe strokes presented with progressive aphasia of insidious onset that began at some point the previous day. NIHSS 4 for aphasia and LOC questions. Initial CTA revealed a left M1 occlusion with ASPECTS 9. Despite low NIHSS and extended time to LKW, she was brought to the angiography suite. Initial angiogram confirmed M1 occlusion with extensive collateralization via the left ACA and anterior temporal artery, but no reconstitution of the MCA proper. Thrombectomy was completed with TICI2B recanalization. Followup MRI revealed minimal infarct in the left insula. The patient was discharged with an NIHSS of 1 for a baseline hemianopia not appreciated on initial exam. Case 2. Situationally Symptomatic. A 55‐year‐old man with symptomatic epilepsy from bilateral subdural hygromas was admitted for video EEG monitoring of episodic dizziness and word‐finding difficulty. Initial exam revealed only orthostatic light‐headedness. Further history revealed these events often happed at night upon standing. No epileptiform events were captured. MRA revealed a complete occlusion of the proximal M1 with reconstitution at the M2 bifurcation in the sylvian fissure. Given lack of persistent clinical deficit and absence of infarct on MRI, DSA was deferred. The patient is followed outpatient without further symptom progression. Case 3. Asymptomatic. A 38 year‐old‐man with TBI presented to the emergency department with thunderclap headache. Initial exam was without deficits. CTA and MRA revealed complete occlusion of the left MCA. We proceeded to the angiography suite where DSA revealed complete left M1 occlusion with distal reconstitution at the M2 bifurcation primarily via the Recurrent Artery of Huebner in addition to ACA collaterals. Lumbar puncture was benign and his headache responded completely to typical migraine treatment. The patient was discharged to outpatient follow up without further sequalae. Conclusions We present a series of illustrative cases of patients with MCA occlusion of variable collateral supply and clinical course, none of whom met conventional criteria for endovascular intervention. More research is needed to establish clinical and imaging criteria to separate patients who would benefit from endovascular intervention from those who are best managed medically in these scenarios.

BackgroundMost patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) develop multiple urological complaints due to hyperactive or hypoactive bladder, and may have detrusor-sphincter dyssynergia. Routine renal ultrasound (RUS) screening has been recommended for both symptomatic and asymptomatic MS patients; however, there is little data to support this practice.MethodsProspectively screened consecutive MS clinic patients in 2016–2017 with functional systems scores (FSS) indicating moderate to severe neurogenic bladder symptoms (FSS bladder ≥2) were sent for RUS. We also screened for history of urinary tract infections.Results872 patients were screened between 3 September 2016 and 13 April 2017. 58 patients met inclusion criteria for RUS. 6 were excluded due to non-compliance with testing or unavailability of results; 52 patients were imaged. Only 3/52 patients were found to have renal pathology requiring follow-up. Of those three, one had known symptomatic nephrolithiasis, and one had subsequently normal findings, leaving one patient newly found to have valid abnormal upper urinary tract (UUT) findings. Multiple incidental findings were also discovered.ConclusionThe minimal yield for significant UUT pathology found in this enriched group of symptomatic MS patients indicates that RUS screening for asymptomatic MS patients without clear risk factors is not indicated. Red flags for high risk of UUT complications should be used as triggers for baseline RUS screening in MS patients.

No abstract