Indeterminate EMU admissions: Does repeating the admission help?

Srijana Zarkou, Madeline Grade, Matthew T. Hoerth, Katherine H. Noe, Joseph I. Sirven, Joseph F. Drazkowski

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Scopus citations


Epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU) admissions during 2007-2009 at Mayo Clinic Hospital Arizona were reviewed. Of the 106 indeterminate admissions, 13 (12%) went on to have a second admission. During the second admission, 8 (62%) were diagnosed. Five patients went on to have a third or fourth admission, with none of them receiving a diagnosis. Nineteen (18%) patients had ambulatory EEG monitoring after an indeterminate admission, with only one (5%) receiving a diagnosis after ambulatory EEG monitoring. Even in patients who were initially indeterminate, medication management changed 37% of the time. Admission to the EMU was helpful for spell classification, with 80% of the patients receiving a diagnosis after the first admission. Based on this study, a second admission should be considered if no diagnosis is reached after the first admission. If no diagnosis is made after the second EMU admission, subsequent admissions are unlikely to produce a definitive diagnosis.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)706-708
Number of pages3
JournalEpilepsy and Behavior
Issue number4
StatePublished - Apr 2011


  • Epilepsy monitoring unit
  • Long-term monitoring
  • Seizure classification

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neurology
  • Clinical Neurology
  • Behavioral Neuroscience


Dive into the research topics of 'Indeterminate EMU admissions: Does repeating the admission help?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this