PURPOSE: Home Video Telemetry (HVT) combines ambulatory EEG with simultaneous video recording. No previous reports have compared HVT and inpatient video telemetry (IVT) in a purely paediatric population. This study compares HVT and IVT in this group in terms of diagnostic efficacy, recording quality and acceptability to parents/carers.
METHODS: 33 HVT and 29 IVT patients aged 1-17 years were included. Information regarding patient demographics, ictal capture, diagnostic utility, recording quality (e.g. video clarity, EEG artefacts) and parent/carer preferences was documented. Difficulties using HVT equipment were recorded.
RESULTS: 62% of IVT patients and 64% of HVT patients had typical attacks during the recording. 59% of IVT and 70% of HVT recordings were considered to have answered the referral question. Study quality was similar in both groups. In HVT studies the rate of equipment difficulties was 52%; problems included camera positioning and failure to turn on the infrared button at night. Diagnostic information was lost in 15% of patients. 76% of parents/carers of HVT patients would choose this investigation again.
CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic efficacy and study quality of home video telemetry and inpatient video telemetry are similar in paediatric patients. Home video telemetry is acceptable to most parents/carers. User error may compromise the investigation in a minority of cases but did not impact on diagnostic utility. Adoption of home video telemetry investigation could provide an accessible and economic alternative to inpatient video telemetry.