Do we intervene less and slower in the epilepsy monitoring unit for psychogenic seizures?

• We do not intervene less or slower for PNES than for epileptic seizures (ES) in the EMU. • In fact, PNES benefit from more interventions than ES do. • Intervention time and adverse event rate are similar between PNES and ES. • PNES suspicion does not affect intervention rate & time nor adverse event rate. • In individual patients, interventions are faster for first PNES than for later PNES. Individuals with psychogenic non-epileptic seizures (PNES) can be stigmatized in healthcare settings. We aimed to compare intervention rate (IR), intervention time (IT), and adverse event (AE) rate between PNES and epileptic seizures (ES) in the epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU). We used a prospective database of consecutive admissions to our centre's EMU between August 2021 and September 2022. We excluded purely electric seizures and vague, minor spells with no EEG correlate. We therefore only included electroclinical seizures and PNES. We compared the IR, IT, and AE rate between PNES and ES, as diagnosed by an epileptologist during EEG monitoring. We performed the same comparisons between spells occurring in people admitted with a high vs low suspicion of PNES (HSP vs LSP). We also verified if ITs became longer with repeated PNES. We analyzed 586 spells: 43 PNES vs 543 ES, or 133 HSP vs 453 LSP. Our univariate analyses showed that IR was higher for PNES than for ES (93 % vs 61 %, p <.001) but that IT and AE rate were similar across groups. This higher IR was only apparent outside weekday daytime hours, when EEG technologists were not present. HSP did not differ from LSP in terms of IR, IT, and AE rate. As PNES accumulated in individual patients, IT tended to be longer (Spearman's correlation = 0.42; p =.012). Our EMU staff did not intervene less or slower for PNES. Rather, IR was higher for PNES than for ES, but IT tended to be longer with repeat PNES. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]