A Theoretical Paradigm for Evaluating Risk-Benefit of Status Epilepticus Treatment.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Amorim E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7516305 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A Theoretical Paradigm for Evaluating Risk-Benefit of Status Epilepticus Treatment.
Amorim Edilberto E McGraw Chris M CM Westover M Brandon MB
Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society 20200901 5
Aggressive treatment of status epilepticus with anesthetic drugs can provide rapid seizure control, but it might lead to serious medical complications and worse outcomes. Using a decision analysis approach, this concise review provides a framework for individualized decision making about aggressive and nonaggressive treatment in status epilepticus. The authors propose and review the most relevant parameters guiding the risk-benefit analysis of treatment aggressiveness in status epilepticus and p ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo address the question: does non-convulsive status epilepticus warrant the same aggressive treatment as convulsive status epilepticus?MethodsWe used a decision model to evaluate the risks and benefits of treating non-convulsive status epilepticus with intravenous anesthetics and ICU-level aggressive care. We investigated how the decision to use aggressive versus non-aggressive management for non-convulsive status epilepticus impacts expected patient outcome for four etiologies: absence epilepsy, discontinued antiepileptic drugs, intraparenchymal hemorrhage, and hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy. Each etiology was defined by distinct values for five key parameters: baseline mortality rate of the inciting etiology; efficacy of non-aggressive treatment in gaining control of seizures; the relative contribution of seizures to overall mortality; the degree of excess disability expected in the case of delayed seizure control; and the mortality risk of aggressive treatment.ResultsNon-aggressive treatment was favored for etiologies with low morbidity and mortality such as absence epilepsy and discontinued antiepileptic drugs. The risk of aggressive treatment was only warranted in etiologies where there was significant risk of seizure-induced neurologic damage. In the case of post-anoxic status epilepticus, expected outcomes were poor regardless of the treatment chosen. The favored strategy in each case was determined by strong interactions of all five model parameters.ConclusionsDetermination of the optimal management approach to non-convulsive status epilepticus is complex and is ultimately determined by the inciting etiology.
| S-EPMC3767472 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8366410 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Refractory and super-refractory status epilepticus (SE) are serious illnesses with a high risk of morbidity and even fatality. In the setting of refractory generalized convulsive SE (GCSE), there is ample justification to use continuous infusions of highly sedating medications-usually midazolam, pentobarbital, or propofol. Each of these medications has advantages and disadvantages, and the particulars of their use remain controversial. Continuous EEG monitoring is crucial in guiding the management of these critically ill patients: in diagnosis, in detecting relapse, and in adjusting medications. Forms of SE other than GCSE (and its continuation in a "subtle" or nonconvulsive form) should usually be treated far less aggressively, often with nonsedating anti-seizure drugs (ASDs). Management of "non-classic" NCSE in ICUs is very complicated and controversial, and some cases may require aggressive treatment. One of the largest problems in refractory SE (RSE) treatment is withdrawing coma-inducing drugs, as the prolonged ICU courses they prompt often lead to additional complications. In drug withdrawal after control of convulsive SE, nonsedating ASDs can assist; medical management is crucial; and some brief seizures may have to be tolerated. For the most refractory of cases, immunotherapy, ketamine, ketogenic diet, and focal surgery are among several newer or less standard treatments that can be considered. The morbidity and mortality of RSE is substantial, but many patients survive and even return to normal function, so RSE should be treated promptly and as aggressively as the individual patient and type of SE indicate.
| S-EPMC6095773 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStatus Epilepticus (SE) is a common neurological emergency associated with a high rate of functional decline and mortality. Large randomized trials have addressed the early phases of treatment for convulsive SE. However, evidence regarding third-line anesthetic treatment and the treatment of nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) is scarce. One trial addressing management of refractory SE with deep general anesthesia was terminated early due to insufficient recruitment. Multicenter prospective registries, including the Sustained Effort Network for treatment of Status Epilepticus (SENSE), have shed some light on these questions, but many answers are still lacking, such as the influence exerted by distinct EEG patterns in NCSE on the outcome. We therefore initiated a new prospective multicenter observational registry to collect clinical and EEG data that combined may further help in clinical decision-making and defining SE.MethodsSustained effort network for treatment of status epilepticus/European Academy of Neurology Registry on refractory Status Epilepticus (SENSE-II/AROUSE) is a prospective, multicenter registry for patients treated for SE. The primary objectives are to document patient and SE characteristics, treatment modalities, EEG, neuroimaging data, and outcome of consecutive adults admitted for SE treatment in each of the participating centers and to identify factors associated with outcome and refractoriness. To reach sufficient statistical power for multivariate analysis, a cohort size of 3000 patients is targeted.DiscussionThe data collected for the registry will provide both valuable EEG data and information about specific treatment steps in different patient groups with SE. Eventually, the data will support clinical decision-making and may further guide the planning of clinical trials. Finally, it could help to redefine NCSE and its management.Trial registrationNCT number: NCT05839418.
| S-EPMC10765797 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Status epilepticus (SE) and cluster seizures (CS) are common occurrences in veterinary neurology and frequent reasons of admission to veterinary hospitals. With prolonged seizure activity, gamma amino-butyric acid (GABA) receptors (GABAa receptors) become inactive, leading to a state of pharmacoresistance to benzodiazepines and other GABAergic medications, which is called refractory status epilepticus (RSE). Prolonged seizure activity is also associated with overexpression of N-methyl-D-aspartic (NMDA) receptors. Rodent models have shown the efficacy of ketamine (KET) in treating RSE, and its use has been reported in one canine case of RSE. Boluses of KET 5 mg/kg IV have become the preferred treatment for RSE in our hospital. A retrospective study was performed to evaluate and report our experience with KET IV bolus to treat prolonged and/or repeated seizure activity in cases of canine CS, SE, and RSE. A total of 15 dogs were retrieved, for 20 hospitalizations and 28 KET IV injections over 3 years. KET IV boluses were used 12 times for RSE (9 generalized seizures, 3 focal seizures) and KET terminated the episode of RSE 12/12 times (100%); however, seizures recurred 4/12 times (33%) within ≤6 h of KET IV bolus. When used for CS apart from episodes of RSE, KET IV bolus was associated with termination of the CS episode only 4/14 times (29%). Only 4/28 (14%) KET IV boluses were associated with adverse effects imputable only to the use of KET. One dog experienced a short, self-limited seizure activity during administration of KET IV, which was most likely related to a pre-mature use of KET IV (i.e., before GABAergic resistance and NMDA receptor overexpression had taken place). This study indicates that KET 5 mg/kg IV bolus may be successful for the treatment of RSE in dogs.
| S-EPMC7925624 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare refractory convulsive status epilepticus (rSE) management and outcome in children with and without a prior diagnosis of epilepsy and with and without a history of status epilepticus (SE).MethodsThis was a prospective observational descriptive study performed from June 2011 to May 2016 on pediatric patients (1 month-21 years of age) with rSE.ResultsWe enrolled 189 participants (53% male) with a median (25th-75th percentile) age of 4.2 (1.3-9.6) years. Eighty-nine (47%) patients had a prior diagnosis of epilepsy. Thirty-four (18%) patients had a history of SE. The time to the first benzodiazepine was similar in participants with and without a diagnosis of epilepsy (15 [5-60] vs 16.5 [5-42.75] minutes, p = 0.858). Patients with a diagnosis of epilepsy received their first non-benzodiazepine (BZD) antiepileptic drug (AED) later (93 [46-190] vs 50.5 [28-116] minutes, p = 0.002) and were less likely to receive at least one continuous infusion (35/89 [39.3%] vs 57/100 [57%], p = 0.03). Compared to patients with no history of SE, patients with a history of SE received their first BZD earlier (8 [3.5-22.3] vs 20 [5-60] minutes, p = 0.0073), although they had a similar time to first non-BZD AED (76.5 [45.3-124] vs 65 [32.5-156] minutes, p = 0.749). Differences were mostly driven by the patients with an out-of-hospital rSE onset.ConclusionsOur study establishes that children with rSE do not receive more timely treatment if they have a prior diagnosis of epilepsy; however, a history of SE is associated with more timely administration of abortive medication.
| S-EPMC5272971 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of pediatric patients with refractory status epilepticus (RSE) and super-refractory status epilepticus (SRSE) who received therapeutic hypothermia (TH) plus anticonvulsants or anticonvulsants alone.MethodsTwo-medical referral centers, retrospective cohort study. Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) at Taoyuan Chang Gung Children's hospital and Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital. We reviewed the medical records of 23 patients with RSE/SRSE who were admitted to PICU from January 2014 to December 2017. Of these, 11 patients received TH (TH group) and 12 patients did not (control group).ResultsThe selective endpoints were RSE/SRSE duration, length of PICU stay, and Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) score. We applied TH using the Artic Sun® temperature management system (target temperature, 34-35 °C; duration, 48-72 h). Of the 11 patients who received TH, 7 had febrile infection-related epilepsy syndrome (FIRSE), one had Dravet syndrome, and three had traumatic brain injury. The TH group had significantly shortern seizure durations than did the control group (hrs; median (IQR) 24(40) vs. 96(90), p < 0.05). Two patients in the TH group died of pulmonary embolism and extreme brain edema. The length of PICU stay was similar between the groups (days; median (IQR) 30(42) v.s 30.5(30.25)). The TH group had significantly better long-term outcomes than did the control group (GOS score, median (IQR) 4(2) v.s 3 (0.75), p = 0.01∗). The TH group had a significantly lower incidence of later chronic refractory epilepsy than did the control group (TH v.s non-TH, 5/11 (45%) v.s. 12/12(100%), p < 0.01).ConclusionsTH effectively reduced the seizure burden in patients with RSE/SRSE. Our findings support that for patients with RSE/SRSE, TH shortens the seizure duration, ultimately reducing the occurrence of post-status epilepticus epilepsy and improving patients' long-term survival.
| S-EPMC7424094 | 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:ObjectiveThis study was undertaken to describe patterns of benzodiazepine use as first-line treatment of status epilepticus (SE) and test the association of benzodiazepine doses with response to second-line agents in patients enrolled in the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial (ESETT).MethodsPatients refractory to an adequate dose of benzodiazepines for the treatment of SE were enrolled in ESETT. Choice of benzodiazepine, doses given prior to administration of second-line agent, route of administration, setting, and patient weight were characterized. These were compared with guideline-recommended dosing. Logistic regression was used to determine the association of the first dose of benzodiazepine and the cumulative benzodiazepine dose with the response to second-line agent.ResultsFour hundred sixty patients were administered 1170 doses of benzodiazepines (669 lorazepam, 398 midazolam, 103 diazepam). Lorazepam was most frequently administered intravenously in the emergency department, midazolam intramuscularly or intravenously by the emergency medical services personnel, and diazepam rectally prior to ambulance arrival. The first dose of the first benzodiazepine (N = 460) was lower than guideline recommendations in 76% of midazolam administrations and 81% of lorazepam administrations. Among all administrations, >85% of midazolam and >76% of lorazepam administrations were lower than recommended. Higher first or cumulative benzodiazepine doses were not associated with better outcomes or clinical seizure cessation in response to second-line medications in these benzodiazepine-refractory seizures.SignificanceBenzodiazepines as first-line treatment of SE, particularly midazolam and lorazepam, are frequently underdosed throughout the United States. This broad and generalizable cohort confirms prior single site reports that underdosing is both pervasive and difficult to remediate. (ESETT ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01960075.).
| S-EPMC8075113 | 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