↓ Skip to main content

Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy

Overview of attention for article published in CNS Drugs, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
Title
Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy
Published in
CNS Drugs, October 2012
DOI 10.1007/s40263-012-0006-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dale C. Hesdorffer, Torbjorn Tomson

Abstract

Among people with epilepsy, there is a 20-fold higher risk of dying suddenly and unexpectedly compared with the general population. This phenomenon is called sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) and the term is used when sudden death occurs in an otherwise reasonably healthy person with epilepsy and the autopsy is unrevealing. In most cases, SUDEP occurs during sleep and is unwitnessed. Risk factors for SUDEP include the presence or number of generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS), nocturnal seizures, young age at epilepsy onset, longer duration of epilepsy, dementia, absence of cerebrovascular disease, asthma, male gender, symptomatic aetiology of epilepsy and alcohol abuse. Suggested factors predisposing to SUDEP have included long-QT-related mutations, impaired serotonergic brain stem control of respiration, altered autonomic control and seizures with a pronounced postictal suppression and respiratory compromise. Final events that may lead up to SUDEP are a postictal CNS shutdown with pronounced EEG suppression, ictal or postictal apnoea, and ictal cardiac arrhythmia. It is unknown whether antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) modify the risk for SUDEP. Studies have consistently found that the presence or number of GTCS is associated with an increased risk for SUDEP. Since continued presence of GTCS clearly necessitates the use of AEDs, both factors must be taken into account to determine whether one or both increases the risk for SUDEP. Some studies suggest that AEDs, such as lamotrigine and carbamazepine, may increase the risk of SUDEP, but rarely adjust for GTCS. Other studies, which have found that AEDs are associated with a decreased SUDEP risk, either adjust for the number of GTCS or are meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials. Studies assessing the impact of AEDs on the risk for SUDEP are limited because SUDEP is a rare event, making randomized clinical trials impossible to conduct. Observational studies focus on whether or not an AED was prescribed. When postmortem AED concentrations are assessed they are usually low or absent, perhaps due to sampling in deceased individuals, making it difficult to fully resolve whether AEDs increase or decrease SUDEP risk. Despite these caveats, the evidence suggests that AEDs are not associated with an increased risk for SUDEP on a population level, although some individuals may be susceptible to effects of AEDs. Recent evidence from a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of adjunctive AEDs at efficacious doses provides strong support for AED treatment as mono- or polytherapy to increase seizure control and protect against SUDEP in patients with refractory epilepsy. For patients for whom seizure control is unattainable, supervision or monitoring may prevent SUDEP, though this has never been formally tested.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
United States 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 90 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 18%
Researcher 14 15%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Postgraduate 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 20 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 35%
Neuroscience 11 12%
Psychology 10 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 23 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 May 2021.
All research outputs
#6,068,317
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from CNS Drugs
#561
of 1,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,709
of 183,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CNS Drugs
#13
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 183,634 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.