CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT04284072SeizeIT2Updated Nov 8, 2022

Clinical Scenarios for Long-term Monitoring of Epileptic Seizures With a Wearable Biopotential Technology

An interventional study of Sensor Dot in Epilepsy, sponsored by Universitaire Ziekenhuizen KU Leuven. Completed at 7 sites in 5 countries. Open to participants aged 4 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2022-11-08.

Sponsored by Universitaire Ziekenhuizen KU Leuven · Not applicable, Interventional, and Diagnostic

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
496
Allocation
Not applicable
Ages
4 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Clinically validate a biopotential and motion recording wearable device (Byteflies Sensor Dot) for detection of epileptic seizures in the epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU) and at home.

Read the detailed description

Subjects with refractory epilepsy who are admitted to the Epilepsy Monitoring Unit (EMU) for clinically-indicated long-term video-EEG assessment will be simultaneously monitored with Sensor Dots to record electroencephalographic (EEG), electrocardiographic (ECG), electromyographic (EMG), and motion signals.

A subset of subjects will continue using Sensor Dot devices at home (Home Phase) after completing the EMU Phase.

The data recorded by Sensor Dots will be used to: 1) annotate epileptic seizures, which will be compared to the annotations made as part of routine EMU monitoring and seizure diaries kept at home, and 2) to develop seizure detection algorithms. The data collected as part of this study will not be used to influence clinical decision making.

02

Conditions studied

  • Epilepsy

Keywords

  • Seizure detection
  • Wearable
  • Epilepsy
  • Seizure
  • Sensor Dot
03

In context

Epilepsy

1,805 studies on the registry are indexed under Epilepsy; 417 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 496 is above the median of 50 across 1,206 interventional studies indexed under Epilepsy.

Browse Epilepsy studies →

Lead sponsor

Universitaire Ziekenhuizen KU Leuven is the lead sponsor of 928 studies on the registry; 261 are open to participants now.

Of its 5 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 0 (0%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
4 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Subjects (4+ years old) with refractory epilepsy who are admitted to the hospital for clinically-indicated long-term video-EEG assessment or presurgical evaluation, and a high likelihood of experiencing seizures during the EMU Phase
  • For subjects continuing into the Home Phase: successful recording of their habitual seizures with Sensor Dot during the EMU Phase
  • For subjects continuing into the Home Phase: the ability to keep an e-diary

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Known allergies to any of the biopotential electrodes or adhesives used as part of the study protocol
  • Having an implanted device, such as (but not limited to) a pacemaker, cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), and/or neural stimulation device because Sensor Dot contains magnets that could interfere with the operation of these devices
  • Women who are pregnant
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Diagnostic
Allocation
Not applicable
Intervention model
Sequential assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
496 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    All subjects

    Single arm study with a device intervention for epileptic seizure monitoring in subjects with refractory focal impaired awareness, tonic-clonic, and/or typical absence seizures.

    Device: Sensor Dot

Interventions

  • DeviceSensor Dot

    Multimodal (EEG, ECG, EMG and motion) seizure monitoring with Sensor Dot to complement EMU-based video-EEG monitoring (EMU Phase), and optional home-based seizure diary logging (Home Phase).

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Comparison of typical absence seizure annotations derived from Sensor Dot data collected during the EMU Phase against annotations derived from video-EEG equipment during wakefulness

    F1-score as determined by expert reviewers

    Time frame: up to two weeks

  2. Comparison of typical absence seizure annotations derived from Sensor Dot data collected during the EMU Phase against annotations derived from video-EEG equipment during sleep

    F1-score as determined by expert reviewers

    Time frame: up to two weeks

  3. Comparison of focal impaired awareness seizure annotations derived from Sensor Dot data collected during the EMU Phase against annotations derived from video-EEG equipment during wakefulness

    F1-score as determined by expert reviewers

    Time frame: up to two weeks

  4. Comparison of focal impaired awareness seizure annotations derived from Sensor Dot data collected during the EMU Phase against annotations derived from video-EEG equipment during sleep

    F1-score as determined by expert reviewers

    Time frame: up to two weeks

  5. Comparison of tonic-clonic seizure annotations derived from Sensor Dot data collected during the EMU Phase against annotations derived from video-EEG equipment during wakefulness

    F1-score as determined by expert reviewers

    Time frame: up to two weeks

  6. Comparison of tonic-clonic seizure annotations derived from Sensor Dot data collected during the EMU Phase against annotations derived from video-EEG equipment during sleep

    F1-score as determined by expert reviewers

    Time frame: up to two weeks

Secondary outcomes

  1. Sensor Dot usability

    We will assess the usability of the device as perceived by users (patients and healthcare personnel) via surveys

    Time frame: up to two weeks

  2. To assess seizure duration

    From the Sensor Dot data, we will be able to assess seizure duration

    Time frame: up to two weeks

  3. To assess the usability of the seizure e-diary

    We will asses usability of the electronic seizure diary

    Time frame: up to two weeks

  4. To evaluate the accuracy of automated seizure detection algorithms

    We will use the collected data and seizure annotations to develop algorithms to automatically detect epileptic seizures. We plan to evaluate how accurate these new automated seizure detection algorithms are.

    Time frame: 2 years

  5. Comparison of seizure annotations derived from Sensor Dot data collected during the Home Phase against seizure diary annotations

    Accuracy as determined by expert reviewers

    Time frame: up to 2 weeks

  6. Sensor Dot Performance

    We will assess the technical performance of the device by comparing the actual length of recorded data against the expected recording length, and what percentage of the data is high quality enough to make seizure annotations.

    Time frame: up to 2 weeks

07

Study locations

7 sites
  • University Hospitals Leuven, department of Neurology
    Leuven, 3000, Belgium
  • Department of Epileptology and Neurology
    Aachen, Germany
  • Epilepsy Center, University Medical Center, Freiburg University
    Freiburg, Germany
  • Division of Neurology, Coimbra University Hospital
    Coimbra, Portugal
  • Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute
    Stockholm, Sweden
  • Division of Neuroscience, King's College London
    London, United Kingdom
  • Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Oxford University Hospital
    Oxford, United Kingdom
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Fisher RS, Acevedo C, Arzimanoglou A, Bogacz A, Cross JH, Elger CE, Engel J Jr, Forsgren L, French JA, Glynn M, Hesdorffer DC, Lee BI, Mathern GW, Moshe SL, Perucca E, Scheffer IE, Tomson T, Watanabe M, Wiebe S. ILAE official report: a practical clinical definition of epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2014 Apr;55(4):475-82. doi: 10.1111/epi.12550. Epub 2014 Apr 14. PubMed 24730690 ↗
  • Sander JW. The epidemiology of epilepsy revisited. Curr Opin Neurol. 2003 Apr;16(2):165-70. doi: 10.1097/01.wco.0000063766.15877.8e. PubMed 12644744 ↗
  • Kwan P, Brodie MJ. Early identification of refractory epilepsy. N Engl J Med. 2000 Feb 3;342(5):314-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200002033420503. PubMed 10660394 ↗
  • Elger CE, Hoppe C. Diagnostic challenges in epilepsy: seizure under-reporting and seizure detection. Lancet Neurol. 2018 Mar;17(3):279-288. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30038-3. PubMed 29452687 ↗
  • Hoppe C, Poepel A, Elger CE. Epilepsy: accuracy of patient seizure counts. Arch Neurol. 2007 Nov;64(11):1595-9. doi: 10.1001/archneur.64.11.1595. PubMed 17998441 ↗
  • Kurada AV, Srinivasan T, Hammond S, Ulate-Campos A, Bidwell J. Seizure detection devices for use in antiseizure medication clinical trials: A systematic review. Seizure. 2019 Mar;66:61-69. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2019.02.007. Epub 2019 Feb 13. PubMed 30802844 ↗
  • Bidwell J, Khuwatsamrit T, Askew B, Ehrenberg JA, Helmers S. Seizure reporting technologies for epilepsy treatment: A review of clinical information needs and supporting technologies. Seizure. 2015 Nov;32:109-17. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2015.09.006. Epub 2015 Sep 18. PubMed 26552573 ↗
  • Beniczky S, Ryvlin P. Standards for testing and clinical validation of seizure detection devices. Epilepsia. 2018 Jun;59 Suppl 1:9-13. doi: 10.1111/epi.14049. PubMed 29873827 ↗
  • Szabo CA, Morgan LC, Karkar KM, Leary LD, Lie OV, Girouard M, Cavazos JE. Electromyography-based seizure detector: Preliminary results comparing a generalized tonic-clonic seizure detection algorithm to video-EEG recordings. Epilepsia. 2015 Sep;56(9):1432-7. doi: 10.1111/epi.13083. Epub 2015 Jul 20. PubMed 26190150 ↗
  • Beniczky S, Conradsen I, Wolf P. Detection of convulsive seizures using surface electromyography. Epilepsia. 2018 Jun;59 Suppl 1:23-29. doi: 10.1111/epi.14048. PubMed 29873829 ↗
  • Beniczky S, Polster T, Kjaer TW, Hjalgrim H. Detection of generalized tonic-clonic seizures by a wireless wrist accelerometer: a prospective, multicenter study. Epilepsia. 2013 Apr;54(4):e58-61. doi: 10.1111/epi.12120. Epub 2013 Feb 8. PubMed 23398578 ↗
  • Kjaer TW, Sorensen HBD, Groenborg S, Pedersen CR, Duun-Henriksen J. Detection of Paroxysms in Long-Term, Single-Channel EEG-Monitoring of Patients with Typical Absence Seizures. IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med. 2017 Jan 9;5:2000108. doi: 10.1109/JTEHM.2017.2649491. eCollection 2017. PubMed 29018634 ↗
  • Zibrandtsen IC, Kidmose P, Christensen CB, Kjaer TW. Ear-EEG detects ictal and interictal abnormalities in focal and generalized epilepsy - A comparison with scalp EEG monitoring. Clin Neurophysiol. 2017 Dec;128(12):2454-2461. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2017.09.115. Epub 2017 Oct 12. PubMed 29096220 ↗
  • Gu Y, Cleeren E, Dan J, Claes K, Van Paesschen W, Van Huffel S, Hunyadi B. Comparison between Scalp EEG and Behind-the-Ear EEG for Development of a Wearable Seizure Detection System for Patients with Focal Epilepsy. Sensors (Basel). 2017 Dec 23;18(1):29. doi: 10.3390/s18010029. PubMed 29295522 ↗
  • Dan J, Weckhuysen D, Cleeren E, Van Paesschen W, Vandendriessche B. Technical validation of Sensor Dot: a wearable for ambulatory monitoring of epileptic seizures. 2nd International Congress on mobile devices and seizure detection in epilepsy; Lausanne, Switzerland, 2019.
  • Seeck M, Koessler L, Bast T, Leijten F, Michel C, Baumgartner C, He B, Beniczky S. The standardized EEG electrode array of the IFCN. Clin Neurophysiol. 2017 Oct;128(10):2070-2077. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2017.06.254. Epub 2017 Jul 17. PubMed 28778476 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — We plan to share the individual biosignals (EEG, EMG, ECG and movement) and 24-channel seizure-annotated EEG data, de-identified demographic and epilepsy-related data two years after the finish of the study (1-1-2024) upon request to researchers who provide a methodologically sound proposal.

Supporting information: Study protocol

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Nov 8, 2022, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04284072
Lead sponsor
Universitaire Ziekenhuizen KU Leuven
Collaborators
Freiburg University, King's College London, Oxford University Hospital, University of Coimbra, Karolinska Institutet, RWTH Aachen University, UCB Pharma, Byteflies, Helpilepsy
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Feb 25, 2020
Start date
Jun 22, 2020
Primary completion
Jun 30, 2022
Completion
Jun 30, 2022
Last update
Nov 8, 2022

Study contacts

Wim Van Paesschen, MD, PhD
principal investigator · UZ Leuven and KU Leuven

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in May 2022. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion