Laura Mora Munoz1, Anureet Brar1, Nancy Song2
1Neurology, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, 2RUTGERS, The State University of New Jersey
Objective:
To provide the historical context behind SUDEP definition and its evolution over the past 27 years and its current challenges in the clinical setting.
Background:
The term SUDEP was initially defined by Nashef in 1997 as a ¨Sudden, unexpected death in patients with epilepsy, which may be witnessed or unwitnessed, and is non-traumatic and non-drowning death in patients with epilepsy, with or without evidence of a seizure and excluding documented status epilepticus in which post mortem examination does not reveal a toxicologic or anatomic cause of death¨. The concept has its roots in studies conducted by Joseph Priestley in the 18th century.
Design/Methods:
Historical Review of the Definition of SUDEP Since Its Initial Description
Results:
This review explores the evolution of the SUDEP definition, beginning with Nashef's initial description and incorporating insights from 18th-century studies. Nashef published important guidelines in 1997 and 2012, which laid the groundwork for further developments. In 2018, Devinsky et al. built upon these definitions by introducing an 8-tiered classification system. Additionally, the MORTEMUS study, conducted from January 1, 2008, to December 29, 2009, enhanced our understanding by thoroughly evaluating cardiorespiratory arrests in epilepsy monitoring units worldwide. Recent studies in the translational field have also aimed to identify and describe biomarkers associated with this phenomenon.
Conclusions:
This historical review highlights the significant evolution of the definition and understanding of Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy (SUDEP) over the past 27 years. As ongoing research seeks to identify biomarkers and further elucidate the mechanisms behind SUDEP, it is crucial for the clinical community to remain informed about these developments to improve patient outcomes and reduce the incidence of this tragic phenomenon.
Disclaimer: Abstracts were not reviewed by Neurology® and do not reflect the views of Neurology® editors or staff.