Keni Ravish Rajiv, Deepak Menon and Ashalatha Radhakrishnan*
Department of Neurology, R. Madhavan Nayar Center for Comprehensive Epilepsy Care, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute For Medical Sciences and Technology, Trivandrum, Kerala, India
*Corresponding Author: Ashalatha Radhakrishnan, Professor of Neurology and Epileptologist, Department of Neurology, R. Madhavan Nayar Center for Comprehensive Epilepsy Care, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology, Trivandrum, Kerala, India.
Received: July 26, 2020; Published: August 31, 2020
Periodic lateralised epileptiform discharges are electrophysiological biomarkers of acute and sometimes chronic brain injury. A major controversy through the years has been whether PLEDs are truly ictal or just interictal or post-ictal epiphenomenon, and whether these discharges warrant any treatment. In this review, we aimed to critically analyze this issue of whether to actively treat or wait and watch PLEDs in various situations. We conclude that the etiology of PLEDs, depth of encephalopathy and presence of clinical seizures is associated with poor outcome rather than presence of PLEDs per se. Continuous EEG monitoring is warranted to recognise ictal or high risk interictal EEG patterns akin to NCSE before treating aggressively with antiepileptic drugs.
Keywords: PLEDs; BiPLEDs; Seizures; NCSE; Outcome
Citation: Radhakrishnan., et al. “PLEDs and NCSE: To Split or Lump them Together?".Acta Scientific Neurology 3.9 (2020): 136-139.
Copyright: © 2020 Radhakrishnan., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.