Prognosis and therapy of tumor-related versus non-tumor-related status epilepticus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Status epilepticus (SE) is a medical emergency with high mortality rates. Of all SE's, 7% are caused by a brain tumor. Clinical guidelines on the management of SE do not make a distinction between tumor-related SE and SE due to other causes. However, pathophysiological research points towards specific mechanisms of epilepsy in brain tumors. We investigated whether clinical features support a distinct profile of tumor-related SE by looking at measures of severity and response to treatment.Methods
Systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of studies on adult SE that report separate data for tumor-related SE and non-tumor-related SE on the following outcomes: short-term mortality, long-term morbidity, duration of SE, and efficacy of anticonvulsant intervention.Results
Fourteen studies on outcome of SE were included. Tumor-related SE was associated with higher mortality than non-tumor-related SE (17.2% versus 11.2%, RR 1.53, 95%-CI 1.24-1.90). After exclusion of patients with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (a group with a known poor prognosis) from the non-tumor-group, the difference in mortality increased (17.2% versus 6.6%; RR 2.78, 95%-CI 2.21 - 3.47). Regarding long-term morbidity and duration of SE there were insufficient data. We did not find studies that systematically compared effects of therapy for SE between tumor- and non-tumor-related SE.Conclusions
Based on - mostly retrospective - available studies, short-term mortality seems higher in tumor-related SE than in SE due to other causes. Further studies on the outcome and efficacy of different therapeutic regimens in tumor-related SE are needed, to clarify whether tumor-related SE should be regarded as a distinct clinical entity.
SUBMITTER: Arik Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4108966 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundEarly termination of prolonged seizures with intravenous administration of benzodiazepines improves outcomes. For faster and more reliable administration, paramedics increasingly use an intramuscular route.MethodsThis double-blind, randomized, noninferiority trial compared the efficacy of intramuscular midazolam with that of intravenous lorazepam for children and adults in status epilepticus treated by paramedics. Subjects whose convulsions had persisted for more than 5 minutes and who were still convulsing after paramedics arrived were given the study medication by either intramuscular autoinjector or intravenous infusion. The primary outcome was absence of seizures at the time of arrival in the emergency department without the need for rescue therapy. Secondary outcomes included endotracheal intubation, recurrent seizures, and timing of treatment relative to the cessation of convulsive seizures. This trial tested the hypothesis that intramuscular midazolam was noninferior to intravenous lorazepam by a margin of 10 percentage points.ResultsAt the time of arrival in the emergency department, seizures were absent without rescue therapy in 329 of 448 subjects (73.4%) in the intramuscular-midazolam group and in 282 of 445 (63.4%) in the intravenous-lorazepam group (absolute difference, 10 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 4.0 to 16.1; P<0.001 for both noninferiority and superiority). The two treatment groups were similar with respect to need for endotracheal intubation (14.1% of subjects with intramuscular midazolam and 14.4% with intravenous lorazepam) and recurrence of seizures (11.4% and 10.6%, respectively). Among subjects whose seizures ceased before arrival in the emergency department, the median times to active treatment were 1.2 minutes in the intramuscular-midazolam group and 4.8 minutes in the intravenous-lorazepam group, with corresponding median times from active treatment to cessation of convulsions of 3.3 minutes and 1.6 minutes. Adverse-event rates were similar in the two groups.ConclusionsFor subjects in status epilepticus, intramuscular midazolam is at least as safe and effective as intravenous lorazepam for prehospital seizure cessation. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00809146.).
| S-EPMC3307101 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical outcome of patients with possible and definitive post-hypoxic status epilepticus (SE) and to describe the SE types in patients with definitive post-hypoxic SE.MethodsPatients with definitive or possible SE resulting from hypoxic brain injury after cardiac arrest (CA) were prospectively recruited. Intermittent EEG was used for the diagnosis of SE according to clinical practice. Two raters blinded to outcome analyzed EEGs retrospectively for possible and definitive SE patterns and background features (frequency, continuity, reactivity, and voltage). Definitive SE was classified according to semiology (ILAE). Mortality and Cerebral Performance Categories (CPC) score were evaluated 1 month after CA.ResultsWe included 64 patients of whom 92% died. Among the survivors, only one patient had a good neurological outcome (CPC 1). No patient survived with a burst suppression pattern, low voltage, or electro-cerebral silence in any EEG. Possible or definitive SE was diagnosed in a median of 47 h (IQR 39-72 h) after CA. EEG criteria for definitive electrographic SE were fulfilled in 39% of patients; in 38% - for electroclinical SE and in 23% - for ictal-interictal continuum (IIC). The outcome did not differ significantly between the three groups. The only patient with good functional outcome belonged to the IIC group. Comatose non-convulsive SE (NCSE) without subtle motor phenomenon occurred in 20% of patients with definitive electrographic SE and outcome was similar to other types of SE.SignificancePossible or definitive SE due to hypoxic brain injury is associated with poor prognosis. The outcome of patients with electrographic SE, electroclinical SE, and IIC did not differ significantly. Outcome was similar in patients with definitive electrographic SE with and without prominent motor features.
| S-EPMC10947449 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimStatus epilepticus (SE) is a life-threatening neurological emergency. There is insufficient evidence regarding which antiepileptic therapy is most effective in patients with benzodiazepine-refractory convulsive SE. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate intravenous phenytoin (PHT) and other intravenous antiepileptic medications for SE.MethodsWe searched PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in humans up to August 2019. We compared outcomes between intravenous PHT and other intravenous medications. The important primary composite outcomes were the successful clinical cessation of seizures, mortality, and neurological outcomes at discharge. The reliability of the level of evidence for each outcome was compared using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.ResultsA total of 1,103 studies were identified from the databases, and 10 RCTs were included in the analysis. The ratio of successful clinical seizure cessation was significantly lower (risk ratio [RR] 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-0.97) for patients treated with intravenous PHT than with other medications. When we compared mortality and neurological outcomes at discharge, we observed no significant differences between patients treated with PHT and those treated with other medications. The RRs were 1.07 (95% CI, 0.55-2.08) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.72-1.15) for mortality and neurological outcomes at discharge, respectively.ConclusionsOur findings showed that intravenous PHT was significantly inferior to other medications in terms of the cessation of seizures. No significant differences were observed in mortality or neurological outcomes between PHT and other medications.
| S-EPMC8739045 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective Status epilepticus (SE) is a common neurological emergency that is defined as a prolonged seizure or a series of seizures which often leads to irreversible damage. Levetiracetam (LEV) and valproate (VPA) are second-line anti-seizure drugs that are frequently used in patients with established SE (ESE). This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of LEV and VPA for the treatment of ESE. Method MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and clinicaltrials.gov were searched by two authors, which identified six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared LEV and VPA for ESE. Results The six RCTs included 1213 patients (LEV group, n = 593; VPA group, n = 620). Integrated patient data information display LEV was not superior to VPA in terms of clinical seizure termination (63.55% vs. 64.08%, respectively; relative risk [RR] = 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.94–1.11, p = 0.55), with no significant differences between LEV and VPA in terms of good functional outcome at discharge (Glasgow Outcome Scale [GOS] = 4 or 5), intensive care unit (ICU) admission, adverse events, and mortality. There was no statistically significant difference between the two drugs in different age groups. Previous multicenter studies have demonstrated that VPA was slightly more effective than LEV, whereas single-center studies showed the opposite results. In addition, LEV and VPA had similar rates of clinical seizure termination, ICU admission, and adverse events between the age subgroups (ages <18 and >18 years). Conclusions Levetiracetam (LEV) was not superior to valproate (VPA) in terms of efficacy or safety outcomes. In addition, children (<18 years) and adults (>18 years) might have similar responses to LEV and VPA. Additional RCTs are required to verify our results. Highlights • Levetiracetam (LEV) was not superior to valproate (VPA) in terms of efficacy outcomes.• There were no significant differences in the safety outcomes between LEV and VPA.• The efficacy of VPA was better in children than in adults, but the safety profile was opposite.• There is no difference in efficacy and safety between children and adults with LEV.
| S-EPMC9932733 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Primary hyperammonemic encephalopathy due to urea cycle disorders (UCD) typically manifests with episodic unresponsiveness and this clinical entity is not often included in the differential diagnosis of presumed non-convulsive status epilepticus (NCSE). However, this diagnostic consideration has therapeutic implications. In this report, we document the therapeutic importance of elucidating the specific cause of hyperammonemic encephalopathy that closely mimicked NCSE through 2 unique illustrative cases.
| S-EPMC6751912 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is no consensus on the timing of delivery of an infant with nonreassuring fetal status that is associated with maternal status epilepticus. We herein describe a case of status epilepticus due to brain tumor at 28 weeks of gestation.
| S-EPMC4831377 | biostudies-other
Project description:PurposeIn March 2020, the World Health Organization declared the SARS-CoV-2 infection-related coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) a pandemic. During the first and second waves of the pandemic spread, there have been several reports of COVID-19-associated neurological manifestations, including acute seizures and status epilepticus (SE). In this systematic review, we summarized the available data on clinical features, diagnosis, and therapy of COVID-19-related SE.MethodsWe performed a systematic search of the literature to identify data on demographics, clinical, neurophysiological, and neuroradiological data of patients with COVID-19-related SE. We used regression models (linear or logistic) with a stepwise forward method to identify features associated with mortality or severity of SE.ResultsThirty-nine articles were included with a total of 47 cases of SE associated with COVID-19. Age, time between the acute respiratory phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection and SE onset, and hospitalization correlated with a higher SE severity as assessed by quantitative validated scales.ConclusionsSE can be a neurological manifestation of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although a possible association between SE and COVID-19 has been reported, the exact mechanisms are still not fully understood. Systemic inflammatory syndrome due to cytokine release could play a role in COVID-19-related SE.
| S-EPMC7968345 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Super-refractory status epilepticus (SRSE) is a life-threatening form of status epilepticus that continues or recurs despite 24 hours or more of anesthetic treatment. We conducted a multicenter, phase 1/2 study in SRSE patients to evaluate the safety and tolerability of brexanolone (USAN; formerly SAGE-547 Injection), a proprietary, aqueous formulation of the neuroactive steroid, allopregnanolone. Secondary objectives included pharmacokinetic assessment and open-label evaluation of brexanolone response during and after anesthetic third-line agent (TLA) weaning.Patients receiving TLAs for SRSE control were eligible for open-label, 1-hour brexanolone loading infusions, followed by maintenance infusion. After 48 hours of brexanolone infusion, TLAs were weaned during brexanolone maintenance. After 4 days, the brexanolone dose was tapered. Safety and functional status were assessed over 3 weeks of follow-up.Twenty-five patients received open-label study drug. No serious adverse events (SAEs) were attributable to study drug, as determined by the Safety Review Committee. Sixteen patients (64%) experienced ?1 SAE. Six patient deaths occurred, all deemed related to underlying medical conditions. Twenty-two patients underwent ?1 TLA wean attempt. Seventeen (77%) met the response endpoint of weaning successfully off TLAs before tapering brexanolone. Sixteen (73%) were successfully weaned off TLAs within 5 days of initiating brexanolone infusion without anesthetic agent reinstatement in the following 24 hours.In an open-label cohort of limited size, brexanolone demonstrated tolerability among SRSE patients of heterogeneous etiologies and was associated with a high rate of successful TLA weaning. The results suggest the possible development of brexanolone as an adjunctive therapy for SRSE requiring pharmacological coma for seizure control. Ann Neurol 2017;82:342-352.
| S-EPMC5639357 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStatus epilepticus (SE) is a neurologic emergency with potential for substantial mortality and morbidity. Parenteral benzodiazepine is the established first-line treatment but fails to control SE in about one-third of patients. Levetiracetam may be used for SE that is refractory to benzodiazepine therapy.ObjectiveTo examine, by means of a systematic review, the role of IV levetiracetam for the treatment of SE in adults.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases were searched, from inception to August 18, 2020.Study selection and data extractionIncluded in this review were prospective randomized controlled trials comparing levetiracetam with another antiepileptic drug, given with or after a benzodiazepine, in adult patients with SE. The primary outcome was cessation of SE. Quality of evidence was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Characteristics of the included studies were reported using descriptive statistics.Data synthesisFive studies compared IV levetiracetam with valproic acid, phenytoin (or its prodrug fosphenytoin), or both. All 5 studies found no statistically significant differences in efficacy or safety end points. There were numerically more cases of hypotension and respiratory failure with phenytoin, and more cases of psychiatric adverse effects (e.g., post-ictal psychosis) with levetiracetam.ConclusionsAvailable evidence suggests that levetiracetam is as effective as valproic acid or phenytoin for the cessation of SE in adults. Other factors should therefore dictate the choice of antiepileptic drug for patients with SE, such as adverse effect profile, logistics of administration, drug cost, inclusion on hospital formularies, and drug availability.
| S-EPMC8677000 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis review is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 6, 2015).Failure to respond to antiepileptic drugs in patients with uncontrolled seizure activity such as refractory status epilepticus (RSE) has led to the use of anaesthetic drugs. Coma is induced with anaesthetic drugs to achieve complete control of seizure activity. Thiopental sodium and propofol are popularly used for this purpose. Both agents have been found to be effective. However, there is a substantial lack of evidence as to which of the two drugs is better in terms of clinical outcomes.ObjectivesTo compare the efficacy, adverse effects, and short- and long-term outcomes of refractory status epilepticus (RSE) treated with one of the two anaesthetic agents, thiopental sodium or propofol.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (16 August 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 16 August 2016), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 16 August 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (16 August 2016), and the South Asian Database of Controlled Clinical Trials (16 August 2016). Previously we searched IndMED, but this was not accessible at the time of the latest update.Selection criteriaAll randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs (regardless of blinding) assessing the control of RSE using either thiopental sodium or propofol in patients of any age and gender.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors screened the search results and reviewed the abstracts of relevant and eligible trials before retrieving the full-text publications.Main resultsOne study with a total of 24 participants was available for review. This study was a small, single-blind, multicentre trial studying adults with RSE receiving either propofol or thiopental sodium for the control of seizure activity. This study was terminated early due to recruitment problems. For our primary outcome of total control of seizures after the first course of study drug, there were 6/14 patients versus 2/7 patients in the propofol and thiopental sodium groups, respectively (risk ratio (RR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 5.61, low quality evidence). Mortality was seen in 3/14 patients versus 1/7 patients in the propofol and thiopental sodium groups, respectively (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.19 to 11.93, low quality evidence). Our third primary outcome of length of ICU stay was not reported. For our secondary outcomes of adverse events, infection was seen in 7/14 patients versus 5/7 patients in the propofol and thiopental sodium groups, respectively (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.41). Hypotension during administration of study drugs and requiring use of vasopressors was seen in 7/14 patients versus 4/7 patients in the propofol and thiopental sodium groups, respectively (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.38 to 2.00). The other severe complication noted was non-fatal propofol infusion syndrome in one patient. Patients receiving thiopental sodium required more days of mechanical ventilation when compared with patients receiving propofol: (median (range) 17 days (5 to 70 days) with thiopental sodium versus four days (2 to 28 days) with propofol). At three months there was no evidence of a difference between the drugs with respect to outcome measures such as control of seizure activity and functional outcome.Authors' conclusionsSince the last version of this review we have found no new studies.There is a lack of robust, randomised, controlled evidence to clarify the efficacy of propofol and thiopental sodium compared to each other in the treatment of RSE. There is a need for large RCTs for this serious condition.
| S-EPMC6464235 | biostudies-literature