Summary

Background:

Loss of consciousness (LOC) is one of the most common reasons for seeking neurological advice in clinics and emergency departments. There is considerable difficulty in determining the nature of the events according to patient reports, and collateral history is often difficult to interpret due to multiple versions and observer interpretations.

Objectives:

To examine the utility and validity of incidental video recordings (IVR) in the differential diagnosis of LOC.

Methods:

In this retrospective study, I included patients with a documented IVR description. Results were divided into three categories: definite approval (IVR conclusion was decisive and congruent with the gold standard test), partial approval (IVR conclusion was decisive and diagnosis was confirmed by treatment response or clinical course), and inconclusive (IVR conclusion was not decisive, no gold standard test was performed, or the gold standard test was either not decisive or incongruent with the IVR).

Results:

I evaluated the results of 31 patients with IVR documentation. Overall, in 18 patients (58%), the IVR conclusion was decisive and congruent with the gold standard test. In 8 patients (25.8%), the IVR conclusion was decisive and congruent with the clinical course or treatment response. In 5 patients (16.1%) the IVR was regarded as inconclusive.

Conclusions:

IVR have a substantial yield and are highly accurate in the differential diagnosis of LOC, mainly differentiating between epileptic seizures and psychogenic nonepileptic seizures, yet it is utilized in a minority of the patients in real life.