الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 114 |  |  |
| | | from | 114 | | |
Abstract
Epilepsy is a brain disease defined by a long-lasting propensity to produce epileptic convulsions. It is one of the commonest neurological diseases, impacting persons at any age and nationality. Epilepsy diagnosis is performed mainly according to clinical features. Important investigations involve; EEG and brain imaging, especially MRI. Based on the 2014 practical epilepsy definition of the ILAE, diagnosis of epilepsy can be:
• Following at minimum 2 uninduced convulsions with more than 24 hours in between the attacks (the old definition); or,
• Following one reflex (or uninduced) seizure when there is risk of seizure recurrence more than 60 percent (like that following 2 uninduced seizures) across the incoming 10 years; or,
• There is a recognized epilepsy syndrome.
(Perucca, Scheffer, & Kiley, 2018)
Epileptic patients have a high risk of acute MI and sudden cardiac arrest. So, it contributes to the increased chance of early mortality. The increased morbidity and mortality of the CVS can be, rather than other causes, due to the side effects of AEDs on; the excitability of the heart and lipid blood profiles as a great endangering element of coronary artery illness. Also, hazardous effects of epilepsy on the autonomic nervous system with increased sympathetic threshold, results in arterial hypertension and heart arrhythmias. Moreover, cardiac dysfunction in the peri-ictal period is repeatedly reported in relation to various convulsive disorders and can be the etiology of death in a reasonable ratio of epileptic patients. Obviously GCSs, involving partial to generalized bilateral tonic–clonic convulsions and those tonic-clonic convulsions with a generalized onset, make a load on the CVS that can facilitate cardiac disorders like; MI, cardiac arrhythmia and cardiomyopathy. (Nass et al., 2019)
SuPAR has been a promising biomarker of the chronic inflammation and subclinical organ disorder with documented prognostic importance in CVD and critical diseases. (Cyrille, Villablanca, & Ramakrishna, 2016)
In our study we aimed to assessment of suPAR level in childhood epilepsy.
The study was a case control study .The studied groups were divided into 3 groups:
group A: 30 children who were known epileptic.
group B: 25 children with febrile seizures.
group C: 30 children who were not epileptic and had no history of febrile seizures served as control group matched in age and sex or any illness that may induce convulsions or simulate epilepsy.
Our epileptic patients were taken from pediatric neurology unit and pediatric neurology clinic involved in pediatrics department in Minia University.
Our study showed:
* There is statistically no significant increase in the age of the epileptic group than other groups (P value 0.157)
* There is statistically no significant difference regarding the gender of the child. (P value 0.643)
* There is statistically significant difference between Hb of the study groups. (P value 0.008)
* There is statistically no significant difference between TLC of the study groups. (P value 0.287)
* There is statistically no significant difference between PLT of the study groups. (P value 0.614)
* There is statistically no significant difference between the serum urea level of the study groups. (P value 0.598)
* There is statistically no significant difference between the serum creatinine level of the study groups. (P value 0.472)
* There is statistically significant difference between CRP of the study groups. (P value 0.002)
* There is statistically no significant increase in suPAR level in epileptic group than other groups. (P value 0.300)
* There is statistically no significant difference between focal and generalized convulsion regarding suPAR level. (P value 0.423)
* There is statistically no significant difference between normal and epileptic EEG regarding suPAR level. (P value 0.153)
* There is statistically no significant difference between family histories of the study groups regarding suPAR level. (P value 0.113)
* There is statistically no significant difference between CRP and suPAR level. (P value 0.729)
* There is weak negative correlation between age and suPAR, this correlation is not significant. (r -0.093, p 0.396)
* There is weak negative correlation between Hb and suPAR, this correlation is not significant. (r -0.120, p 0.275)
* There is weak positive correlation between TLC and suPAR, this correlation is not significant. (r 0.152, p 0.164)
* There is weak positive correlation between PLT and suPAR, this correlation is not significant. (r 0.073, p 0.504).