Levetiracetam versus phenytoin for second-line treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus (EcLiPSE): a multicentre, open-label, randomised trial

Decreased synapse-associated proteins are associated with the onset of epileptic memory impairment in endothelial CDK5-deficient mice

Accumulating evidence indicates that epilepsy has a higher risk of inducing memory impairment and dementia. However, the underlying onset mechanism remains unclear. Here, we found that mice with spontaneous epilepsy induced by endothelial CDK5 deficiency exhibited hippocampal-dependent memory impairment at 6 months of age, but not at 2 months of age. Moreover, the persistent epileptic seizures induce aberrant changes in phosphorylation of CaMKII protein in the hippocampus of spontaneous epileptic mice. Using genome-wide RNA sequencing and intergenic interaction analysis of STRING, we found that in addition to epilepsy-related genes, there are changes in synaptic organization pathway node genes, such as Bdnf and Grin1. The synapse-related proteins by Western blot analysis, such as NMDA receptors (NR1 and NR2B), PSD95, and the phosphorylation of synapsin1, are progressively decreased during epileptic seizures in Cdh5-CreERT2;CDK5f/f mice. Notably, we found that valproate (VPA) and phenytoin (PHT) augment mRNA expression and protein levels of synapse-related genes and ameliorate memory impairment in Cdh5-CreERT2;CDK5f/f mice. Our study elucidates a potential mechanism of memory deficits in epilepsy, and pharmacological reversal of synaptic pathology targeting might provide a new therapeutic intervention for epileptic memory deficits.

Rationale and design of a randomized controlled clinical trial; Titration of Oxygen Levels (TOOL) during mechanical ventilation

BACKGROUND

Both hyperoxemia and hypoxemia are deleterious in critically ill patients. Targeted oxygenation is recommended to prevent both of these extremes, however this has not translated to the bedside. Hyperoxemia likely persists more than hypoxemia due to absence of immediate discernible adverse effects, cognitive biases and delay in prioritization of titration.

METHODS

We present the methodology for the Titration Of Oxygen Levels (TOOL) trial, an open label, randomized controlled trial of an algorithm-based FiO2 titration with electronic medical record-based automated alerts. We hypothesize that the study intervention will achieve targeted oxygenation by curbing episodes of hyperoxemia while preventing hypoxemia. In the intervention arm, electronic alerts will be used to titrate FiO2 if SpO2 is ≥94% with FiO2 levels ≥0.4 over 45 min. FiO2 will be titrated per standard practice in the control arm. This study is being carried out with deferred consent. The sample size to determine efficacy is 316 subjects, randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention vs. control arm. The primary outcome is proportion of time during mechanical ventilation spent with FiO2 ≥ 0.4 and SpO2 ≥ 94%. We will also assess proportion of time during mechanical ventilation spent with SpO2 < 88%, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of ICU and hospital stay, hospital mortality, and adherence to electronic alerts as secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This study is designed to evaluate the efficacy of a high fidelity, bioinformatics-based, electronic medical record derived electronic alert system to improve targeted oxygenation in mechanically ventilated patients by reducing excessive FiO2 exposure.

High-Dose Dexmedetomidine for Severe Hyperactive Delirium Secondary to Intravenous Levetiracetam on Two Separate Occasions in the Same Patient

We describe the case of a 5-year-old male who developed severe hyperactive delirium with aggressive violent behavior following the administration of IV levetiracetam for the treatment of status epilepticus on two occasions. The child's symptoms ranged from attacking his parents and the intensive care staff. Risperidone was given without any improvement in symptoms. A high-dose continuous infusion of IV dexmedetomidine was administered, and his violent behavior and delirium significantly improved. The two episodes of hyperactive delirium following IV levetiracetam administration occurred at ages 3 and 5, resulting in extensive work up including laboratory testing and cranial imaging, along with cerebral spinal fluid analysis and were normal. IV dexmedetomidine provided rapid symptom relief to prevent harm for the child, staff, and family on both occasions.

Efficacy of intravenous levetiracetam versus phenytoin in convulsive status epilepticus and acute repetitive seizures in children

PURPOSE

Phenytoin is one of the most used antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), but it has serious potential side effects and drug interactions. Although studies have shown levetiracetam to have a much lower side-effect profile, its efficacy when compared with phenytoin is debatable. In our study, we aimed to determine the factors that cause seizure recurrence and to compare the efficacy of levetiracetam and phenytoin in the treatment of convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) and acute repetitive seizures (ARS).

METHODS

In this study, 185 patients diagnosed with CSE or ARS and aged between 1 month and 18 years who received intravenous levetiracetam or phenytoin as a second-line AED were retrospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 185 patients were included in the study, 85 (45.9%) girls and 100 (54.1%) boys.While 54.1% (n = 100) of the patients were given phenytoin, levetiracetam was administered to 45.9% (n = 85) of them. The rates of cessation of seizure and prevention of seizure recurrence for 24 h were 84% for phenytoin and 78.8% for levetiracetam, without a significant difference (p > 0.05). Having active seizures on admission to the emergency department and an age of < 36 months were significantly related to seizure recurrence (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support that the intravenous administration of levetiracetam as the second-line treatment for CSE and ARS in children is as effective as the intravenous administration of phenytoin.

Modeling current practices in critical care comparative effectiveness research

Objective: To determine whether contemporaneous practices are adequately represented in recent critical care comparative effectiveness research studies. Design: All critical care comparative effectiveness research trials published in the New England Journal of Medicine from April 2019 to March 2020 were identified. To examine studies published in other high impact medical journals during the same period, such trials were subsequently also identified in the Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet. All cited sources were reviewed, and the medical literature was searched to find studies describing contemporary practices. Then, the designated control group or the comparable therapies studied were examined to determine if they represented contemporaneous critical care practices as described in the medical literature. Results: Twenty-five of 332 randomised clinical trials published in these three journals during this 1-year period described critical care comparative effectiveness research that met our inclusion criteria. Seventeen characterised current practices before enrolment (using surveys, observational studies and guidelines) and then incorporated current practices into one or more study arm. In the other eight, usual care arms appeared insufficient. Four of these trials randomly assigned patients to one of two fixed approaches at either end of a range of usually titrated care. However, due to randomisation, different subgroups within each arm received care that was inappropriate for their specific clinical conditions. In the other four of these trials, common practices influencing treatment choice were not reflected in the trial design, despite a prior effort to characterise usual care. Conclusion: One-third of critical care comparative effectiveness research trials published in widely read medical journals during a recent year did not include a designated control arm or comparable therapies representative of contemporary practices. Failure to incorporate contemporary practices into critical care comparative effectiveness trials appears to be a widespread design weakness.

The safety of rapid infusion levetiracetam: A systematic review

Epilepsy is a common diagnosis and can quickly progress to status epilepticus which requires rapid treatment. Levetiracetam is a frequent treatment choice in these situations. The approved administration of intravenous levetiracetam is an infusion over 15 min. In recent years, studies have been published on faster infusion rates of levetiracetam. The objective of this review is to discuss the safety of levetiracetam as an intravenous push at a rate quicker than recommended. A literature search using PubMed, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar resulted in 192 articles. Inclusion criteria consisted of English language, human studies, use of levetiracetam administered intravenously at a rate faster than 15 min, discussion of safety, and full-text availability. After screening, nine articles remained for inclusion. Of the nine articles, one was a prospective, open-label study, six were retrospective studies, and two were open-label, randomized controlled trials. The most common rapid infusion speed was 5 min and doses ranged from 280 to 4500 mg. Some of these trials used undiluted levetiracetam and many reported that peripheral access was used for a portion or all of the administrations. There were few adverse effects, including specific adverse effects relating to medication concentration and speed of infusion, in all the studies. Administration of intravenous levetiracetam at a rate faster than recommended in the labeling information appears to be safe and tolerable and can be given via a peripheral line. Rapid infusion of levetiracetam is a beneficial method of administration in an acute care setting where patients need rapid attainment of therapeutic levels of antiepileptic medications. Additional research is needed to ensure that rapid administration of intravenous levetiracetam is as efficacious as the traditional dosing method.

Early Titration of Oxygen During Mechanical Ventilation Reduces Hyperoxemia in a Pilot, Feasibility, Randomized Control Trial for Automated Titration of Oxygen Levels

Timely regulation of oxygen (Fio₂) is essential to prevent hyperoxemia or episodic hypoxemia. Exposure to excessive Fio₂ is often noted early after onset of mechanical ventilation. In this pilot study, we examined the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of a clinical trial to prioritize Fio₂ titration with electronic alerts to respiratory therapists.

Parenteral Long-Acting Antiseizure Medications Are Used More Often to Treat Seizure Clusters Than Convulsive Status Epilepticus in the Pediatric Emergency Department

Objective:Recent trials provide high-quality evidence for second-line treatment of convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) in children. However, the most effective medications for other seizure emergencies are poorly understood without established treatment algorithms. We investigated children presenting to the emergency department with repetitive or prolonged convulsions who required intravenous long-acting antiseizure medications, to determine the relative importance and treatment responsiveness of status epilepticus and seizure clusters. Methods: Retrospective observational study in the emergency department, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia (annual census 90 000) using hospital electronic medical records data of patients presenting with seizures in 2018. For patients receiving parenteral long-acting antiseizure medications, seizures were categorized as convulsive status epilepticus, nonconvulsive status epilepticus, and seizure clusters. Results: 1468 patients (2% of all visits) presented with seizures to the emergency department in 2018. Long-acting antiseizure medications were administered to 97 (7%) children for the emergency management of seizures. The majority presented with seizure clusters (n = 69; 71%). Only 11 (11%) were in convulsive status epilepticus and 17 (18%) in nonconvulsive status epilepticus. In convulsive status epilepticus, nonconvulsive status epilepticus, and seizure clusters, phenytoin was used in 27%, 53%, and 58% and levetiracetam in 73%, 47%, and 32%, respectively. Conclusions:Convulsive status epilepticus represents a small portion of patients requiring parenteral long-acting antiseizure medications. Seizure clusters accounted for >6 times the number of convulsive status epilepticus, yet evidence and treatment algorithms are lacking.

Why won't it stop? The dynamics of benzodiazepine resistance in status epilepticus

Status epilepticus is a life-threatening neurological emergency that affects both adults and children. Approximately 36% of episodes of status epilepticus do not respond to the current preferred first-line treatment, benzodiazepines. The proportion of episodes that are refractory to benzodiazepines is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) than in high-income countries (HICs). Evidence suggests that longer episodes of status epilepticus alter brain physiology, thereby contributing to the emergence of benzodiazepine resistance. Such changes include alterations in GABA_A receptor function and in the transmembrane gradient for chloride, both of which erode the ability of benzodiazepines to enhance inhibitory synaptic signalling. Often, current management guidelines for status epilepticus do not account for these duration-related changes in pathophysiology, which might differentially impact individuals in LMICs, where the average time taken to reach medical attention is longer than in HICs. In this Perspective article, we aim to combine clinical insights and the latest evidence from basic science to inspire a new, context-specific approach to efficiently managing status epilepticus.

Status Epilepticus Australasian Registry for Children: A pilot prospective, observational, cohort study of paediatric status epilepticus

OBJECTIVE

Paediatric status epilepticus (SE) has potential for long-term sequelae. Existing data demonstrate delays to aspects of care. The objective of the present study was to examine the feasibility of collecting data on children with paediatric SE and describe current management strategies in pre-hospital and in-hospital settings.

METHODS

A pilot, prospective, observational cohort study of children 4 weeks to 16 years of age with SE, in four EDs in Australia. Clinical details including medications administered, duration of seizure and short-term outcomes were collected. Follow up occurred by telephone at 1 month.

RESULTS

We enrolled 167 children with SE. Mean age was 5.4 years (standard deviation [SD] 4.1), and 81 (49%) male. Median seizure duration was 10 min (interquartile range 7-30). Midazolam was the first medication administered in 87/100 (87%) instances, mean dose of 0.21 mg/kg (SD 0.13). The dose of midazolam was adequate in 30 (35%), high (>0.2 mg/kg) in 44 (51%) and low (<0.1 mg/kg) in 13 (15%). For second-line agents, levetiracetam was administered on 33/55 (60%) occasions, whereas phenytoin and phenobarbitone were administered on 11/55 (20%) occasions each. Mean dose of levetiracetam was 26.4 mg/kg (SD 13.5). One hundred and four (62%) patients were admitted to hospital, with 13 (8%) admitted to ICU and seven (4%) intubated.

CONCLUSION

In children presenting with SE in Australia medical management differed from previous reports, with midazolam as the preferred benzodiazepine, and levetiracetam replacing phenytoin as the preferred second-line agent. This pilot study indicates the feasibility of a paediatric SE registry and its utility to understand and optimise practice.

Clinical Evaluation of Levetiracetam in the Treatment of Epilepsy

Objectives

Epilepsy is a chronic neurological disorder that is characterized by episodes of seizure.

Methods

In this study, patients with status epilepticus in the Intensive Care Unit of the Department of Neurology of Qujing First People's Hospital were collected and treated with levetiracetam injection, continuous bedside EEG monitoring (cEEG) technology, and quantitative EEG (qEEG) technique. The inhibitory effects of different doses of levetiracetam injection and sodium valproate on abnormal discharge, the improvement of clinical symptoms, the incidence of adverse reactions, and prognosis were monitored, analyzed, and compared.

Results

Compared with the experimental group of sodium valproate, 1000 mg/d levetiracetam group and 1500 mg/d levetiracetam group had a high probability of successful symptom control and a short control time. The patients had a low recurrence rate and a long recurrence time, and the probability of abnormal discharge in EEG was low.

Conclusions

The recording results showed that levetiracetam could significantly inhibit the abnormal discharge of patients. Compared with sodium valproate, high-dose levetiracetam is a drug with a rapid effect, good effect, and long action time.

Management of Status Epilepticus, Refractory Status Epilepticus, and Super-refractory Status Epilepticus

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Status epilepticus is a serious condition caused by disorders and diseases that affect the central nervous system. In status epilepticus, hypersynchronous epileptic activity lasts longer than the usual duration of isolated self-limited seizures (time t1), which causes neuronal damage or alteration of neuronal networks at a certain time point (time t2), depending on the type of and duration of status epilepticus. The successful management of status epilepticus includes both the early termination of seizure activity and the earliest possible identification of a causative etiology, which may require independent acute treatment. In nonconvulsive status epilepticus, patients present only with subtle clinical signs or even without any visible clinical manifestations. In these cases, EEG allows for the assessment of cerebral function and identification of patterns in need of urgent treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

In 2015, the International League Against Epilepsy proposed a new definition and classification of status epilepticus, encompassing four axes: symptomatology, etiology, EEG, and age. Various validation studies determined the practical usefulness of EEG criteria to identify nonconvulsive status epilepticus. The American Clinical Neurophysiology Society has incorporated these criteria into their most recent critical care EEG terminology in 2021. Etiology, age, symptomatology, and the metabolic demand associated with an increasing duration of status epilepticus are the most important determinants of prognosis. The consequences of status epilepticus can be visualized in vivo by MRI studies.

SUMMARY

The current knowledge about status epilepticus allows for a more reliable diagnosis, earlier treatment, and improved cerebral imaging of its consequences. Outcome prediction is a soft tool for estimating the need for intensive care resources.

Prognostic effects of treatment protocols for febrile convulsive status epilepticus in children

Background

Febrile status epilepticus is the most common form of status epilepticus in children. No previous reports compare the effectiveness of treatment strategies using fosphenytoin (fPHT) or phenobarbital (PB) and those using anesthetics as second-line anti-seizure medication for benzodiazepine-resistant convulsive status epilepticus (CSE). We aimed to examine the outcomes of various treatment strategies for febrile convulsive status epilepticus (FCSE) in a real-world setting while comparing the effects of different treatment protocols and their presence or absence.

Methods

This was a single-center historical cohort study that was divided into three periods. Patients who presented with febrile convulsive status epilepticus for ≥60 min even after the administration of at least one anticonvulsant were included. During period I (October 2002–December 2006), treatment was performed at the discretion of the attending physician, without a protocol. During period II (January 2007–February 2013), barbiturate coma therapy (BCT) was indicated for FCSE resistant to benzodiazepines. During period III (March 2013–April 2016), BCT was indicated for FCSE resistant to fPHT or PB.

Results

The rate of electroencephalogram monitoring was lower in period I than period II+III (11.5% vs. 85.7%, p<0.01). Midazolam was administered by continuous infusion more often in period I than period II+III (84.6% vs. 25.0%, p<0.01), whereas fPHT was administered less often in period I than period II+III (0% vs. 27.4%, p<0.01). The rate of poor outcome, which was determined using the Pediatric Cerebral Performance Category scale, was higher in period I than period II+III (23.1% vs. 7.1%, p=0.03). The rate of poor outcome did not differ between periods II and III (4.2% vs. 11.1%, p=0.40).

Conclusions

While the presence of a treatment protocol for FCSE in children may improve outcomes, a treatment protocol using fPHT or PB may not be associated with better outcomes.

Prehospital benzodiazepine use and need for respiratory support in paediatric seizures

BACKGROUND

Paramedics are frequently called to attend seizures in children. High-quality evidence on second-line treatment of benzodiazepine (BZD)-refractory convulsions with parenteral long-acting antiepileptic drugs in children has become available from the ED. In order to address the potential need for an alternative agent, we set out to determine the association of BZD use prehospital and the need for respiratory support.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational study of state-wide ambulance service data (Ambulance Victoria in Victoria, Australia, population: 6.5 million). Children aged 0-17 years assessed for seizures by paramedics were analysed for demographics, process factors, treatment and airway management. We calculated adjusted ORs (AOR) of the requirement for respiratory support in relation to the number of BZD doses administered.

RESULTS

Paramedics attended 5112 children with suspected seizures over 1 year (1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019). Overall, need for respiratory support was low (n=166; 3.2%). Before ambulance arrival, 509 (10.0%) had already received a BZD and 420 (8.2%) were treated with midazolam by paramedics. Of the 846 (16.5%) patients treated with BZD, 597 (70.6%) received 1 BZD dose, 156 (18.4%) 2 doses and 93 (11.0%) >2 doses of BZD. Patients who were administered 1, 2 and >2 doses of BZD received respiratory support in 8.9%, 32.1% (AOR 4.6 vs 1 dose, 95% CI 2.9 to 7.4) and 49.5% (AOR 10.3 vs 1 dose, 95% CI 6.0 to 17.9), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing administration of BZD doses was associated with higher use of respiratory support. Alternative prehospital antiepileptic drugs to minimise respiratory depression should be investigated in future research.

Guidance on Dravet syndrome from infant to adult care: Road map for treatment planning in Europe

Dravet syndrome (DS) is a severe, rare, and complex developmental and epileptic encephalopathy affecting 1 in 16 000 live births and characterized by a drug‐resistant epilepsy, cognitive, psychomotor, and language impairment, and behavioral disorders. Evidence suggests that optimal treatment of seizures in DS may improve outcomes, even though neurodevelopmental impairments are the likely result of both the underlying genetic variant and the epilepsy. We present an updated guideline for DS diagnosis and treatment, taking into consideration care of the adult patient and nonpharmaceutical therapeutic options for this disease. This up‐to‐date guideline, which is based on an extensive review of the literature and culminates with a new treatment algorithm for DS, is a European consensus developed through a survey involving 29 European clinical experts in DS. This guideline will serve professionals in their clinical practice and, as a consequence, will benefit DS patients and their families.

Comparison of the effect of continuous intravenous infusion of sodium valproate and midazolam on management of status epilepticus in children

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Status epilepticus as a pediatric emergency requires rapid seizure control in order to prevent subsequent disabilities. Therefore, the present study was conducted to compare the efficacy and side effects of continuous intravenous infusion of sodium valproate versus midazolam as a third-line treatment of status epilepticus in children.

METHODOLOGY

This randomized clinical trial study included all children with convulsive and non-convulsive status epilepticus admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) of the Bu-Ali Sina Hospital in Sari City (Mazandaran Province, Iran) who had not responded to first-line treatment with diazepam and second-line treatment with phenytoin or phenobarbital. They were consequently treated with continuous intravenous infusion of sodium valproate or midazolam to control persistent seizures.

RESULTS

The study comprised 70 patients who were randomly assigned to two equal groups of sodium valproate or midazolam treatment. The mean age of patients in group A (sodium valproate) and group B (midazolam) was 3.97 ± 3.33 and 3.84 ± 2.93 years, respectively. In the present study, the most common etiology of status epilepticus was remote symptomatic, accounting for 35% of cases in the two groups. Sodium valproate was effective in controlling status epilepticus in 91.4% of patients, while midazolam was found to be effective in 85.7% of patients (p > 0.05). Patients who received sodium valproate had shorter seizure duration after administration of the drug compared to those who received midazolam (p = 0.01). Eight patients in the midazolam group and two patients in the sodium valproate group were intubated (p = 0.023). The mean duration of stay in the PICU was 3.2 ± 1.4 and 5.6 ± 2.8 days in groups A and B, respectively, showing a significant difference (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

According to our findings, intravenous infusion of sodium valproate can be used as an effective and relatively safe treatment in children with all types of status epilepticus, especially in challenging situations such as lack of intensive care units or respiratory problems.

Influence of Different Antiepileptic Drugs on Blood Ammonia and Homocysteine Levels in Children with Epilepsy

In this study, we performed a study on 106 children with epilepsy who were treated with sodium valproate (the VPA group, n = 37), oxcarbazepine (the OXC group, n = 34), or levetiracetam (the LEV group, n = 35). In addition, the clinical data of epileptic children who were newly diagnosed in the same period without antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment (the untreated group, n = 35) and normal children who received physical examination in our hospital (the healthy group, n = 35) were selected as controls. We analyzed the efficacy and safety of different AEDs, used blood ammonia and homocysteine levels as the observation indicators, and calculated the incidence of hyperammonemia (VAH) and hyperhomocysteinemia (HHcy) treated with different AEDs. And, based on the effect of epilepsy status on the cognitive function of patients, we also analyzed the effect of different AED treatments on children's cognitive function. Our results show that sodium valproate, oxcarbazepine, and levetiracetam are all effective in the treatment of children with epilepsy and can be used as the first-line choice of antiepileptic treatment for children with epilepsy. However, compared with sodium valproate, levetiracetam and oxcarbazepine have a lower incidence of adverse drug reactions and do not cause an increase in blood ammonia and Hcy levels, so they have higher safety of drug treatment. In addition, compared with sodium valproate, levetiracetam and oxcarbazepine have better recovery of cognitive function in children with epilepsy and so they have better application value.

Levetiracetam Versus Phenytoin or Fosphenytoin for Second-Line Treatment of Pediatric Status Epilepticus: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize the available evidence examining the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam compared with phenytoin or fosphenytoin in benzodiazepine-refractory pediatric status epilepticus.

DATA SOURCES

We searched (from inception until April 27, 2020) Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers, independently and in duplicate, screened citations and manuscripts for eligible randomized controlled trials.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Independently and in duplicate, we performed data abstraction, risk of bias assessment, and certainty assessment using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. We performed meta-analyses using random-effect models or, if insufficient data, presented findings narratively.

RESULTS

We identified seven randomized controlled trials (n = 1,575). Pooled analysis demonstrated low certainty evidence for no difference of levetiracetam on time to seizure cessation (mean difference, -3.11 min; 95% CI, -6.67 to 0.45), early seizure cessation (relative risk, 1.09, 95% CI, 0.95-1.26), or late seizure cessation (relative risk, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.93-1.18). Adverse event outcomes were limited by low event numbers. We found low certainty evidence for less respiratory depression with levetiracetam (relative risk, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.69).

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of levetiracetam is comparable with phenytoin or fosphenytoin in children with benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus (low certainty evidence). Levetiracetam may cause less respiratory depression. Clinicians and guideline developers should weigh safety profiles when choosing between these agents.

Management of Neurological Emergencies in Children: An Updated Overview

Neurological emergencies account for about one-third of the highest severity codes attributed in emergency pediatric departments. About 75% of children with acute neurological symptoms presents with seizures, headache, or other paroxysmal events. Life-threatening conditions involve a minor proportion of patients (e.g., less than 15% of children with headache and less than 5% of children with febrile seizures). This review highlights updated insights about clinical features, diagnostic workup, and therapeutic management of pediatric neurological emergencies. Particularly, details will be provided about the most recent insights about headache, febrile seizures, status epilepticus, altered levels of consciousness, acute motor impairment, acute movement disorders, and functional disorders, as well as the role of diagnostic tools (e.g., neuroimaging, lumbar puncture, and electroencephalography), in the emergency setting. Moreover, the impact of the current novel coronavirus disease2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the evaluation of pediatric neurologic emergencies will also be analyzed.

Efficacy and safety of levetiracetam versus (fos)phenytoin for second-line treatment of epilepticus: a meta-analysis of latest randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficiency and safety profiles of levetiracetam and (fos)phenytoin (phenytoin or fosphenytoin) for second-line treatment of seizures by performing a meta-analysis of RCTs.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, FDA.gov, and ClinicalTrials.gov for RCTs (published before July 31, 2020; no language restrictions). Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and titles against inclusion and exclusion criteria published previously in the PROSPERO: CRD42020202736. Eleven studies fulfilled the established criteria. We assessed pooled data by using a random-effects model. Quality analysis was performed by using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2). RevMan v.5.3 was used to perform statistical analyses, and publication bias (egger's test) was assessed with Stata MP v.14.0.

RESULTS

Levetiracetam was similar to (fos)phenytoin in seizure termination rate (risk ratio [RR] 0.94; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.01), time of seizure termination (mean difference [MD] 0.44; -0.60 to 1.49), and drug resistance ([RR] 1.12, 0.86 to 1.45). The safety outcome showed a significant statistical difference between fosphenytoin group and levetiracetam group ([RR] 1.44, 1.14 to 1.81), while there was no significant difference observed between phenytoin treatment and levetiracetam treatment ([RR] 1.26, 0.99 to 1.60).

CONCLUSION

Levetiracetam was similar to (fos)phenytoin in cessation rate convulsive status epilepticus, and drug resistance, while it was superior (fos)phenytoin in pooled safety outcome. Further exploration is still needed as to whether it is the first choice for second-line drugs.

The Pediatric Emergency Research Network (PERN): A decade of global research cooperation in paediatric emergency care

OBJECTIVES

The Pediatric Emergency Research Network (PERN) was launched in 2009 with the intent for existing national and regional research networks in paediatric emergency care to organise globally for the conduct of collaborative research across networks.

METHODS

PERN has grown from five to eight member networks over the past decade. With an executive committee comprising representatives from all member networks, PERN plays a supportive and collaborative rather than governing role. The full impact of PERN's facilitation of international collaborative research, although somewhat difficult to quantify empirically, can be measured indirectly by the observed growth of the field, the nature of the increasingly challenging research questions now being addressed and the collective capacity to generate and implement new knowledge in treating acutely ill and injured children.

RESULTS

Beginning as a pandemic response studying H1N1 influenza risk factors in children, PERN research has progressed to multiple observational studies and ongoing global randomised controlled trials (RCTs). As a recent example, PERN has developed sufficient network infrastructure to enable the rapid initiation of a prospective observational study in response to the current COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

Following its success with developing global research, the PERN goal now is to promote the implementation of scientific advances into everyday clinical practice by: (i) expanding the capacity for global RCTs; (ii) deepening the focus on implementation science; (iii) increasing attention to healthcare disparities; and (iv) expanding PERN's reach into resource-restricted regions. Through these actions, PERN aims to meet the needs of acutely ill and injured children throughout the world.

Use of extended-release and immediate-release anti-seizure medications with a long half-life to improve adherence in epilepsy: A guide for clinicians

Poor adherence to anti-seizure medications (ASMs) is associated with breakthrough seizures and potentially increased toxicity in patients with epilepsy. Extended-release (ER) drugs and immediate-release (IR) drugs with a long half-life (t_1/2) that permit once-daily dosing (such as, perampanel, zonisamide, lamotrigine [IR, ER] and topiramate [ER]) have a number of advantages over short t_1/2 ASMs that require multiple daily dosing. These advantages include simplification of dosing regimens, reduction in pill burden, and a decrease in the peak-to-trough fluctuations in serum drug concentration that may be associated with a decreased risk of adverse effects and seizures. Such properties have wider implications in improving patient adherence to treatment. This article is intended as a practical guide for clinicians that provides an overview of the features of ER ASMs and long t_1/2 IR ASMs that are advantageous in the context of patient adherence and pharmacokinetic "forgiveness" (after missing a dose). In addition, we note that efforts to improve adherence should not depend solely on drug dosing regimens and drug pharmacokinetics, but should be part of a wider strategy that includes therapeutic drug monitoring, improved healthcare provider-patient dialogue, patient education, and the use of "reminder" technology.

The Pediatric Emergency Research Network: A Decade of Global Research Cooperation in Pediatric Emergency Care

OBJECTIVES

The Pediatric Emergency Research Network (PERN) was launched in 2009 with the intent for existing national and regional research networks in pediatric emergency care to organize globally for the conduct of collaborative research across networks.

METHODS

The Pediatric Emergency Research Network has grown from 5- to 8-member networks over the past decade. With an executive committee comprising representatives from all member networks, PERN plays a supportive and collaborative rather than governing role. The full impact of PERN's facilitation of international collaborative research, although somewhat difficult to quantify empirically, can be measured indirectly by the observed growth of the field, the nature of the increasingly challenging research questions now being addressed, and the collective capacity to generate and implement new knowledge in treating acutely ill and injured children.

RESULTS

Beginning as a pandemic response with a high-quality retrospective case-controlled study of H1N1 influenza risk factors, PERN research has progressed to multiple observational studies and ongoing global randomized controlled trials. As a recent example, PERN has developed sufficient network infrastructure to enable the rapid initiation of a prospective observational study in response to the current coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. In light of the ongoing need for translation of research knowledge into equitable clinical practice and to promote health equity, PERN is committed to a coordinated international effort to increase the uptake of evidence-based management of common and treatable acute conditions in all emergency department settings.

CONCLUSIONS

The Pediatric Emergency Research Network's successes with global research, measured by prospective observational and interventional studies, mean that the network can now move to improve its ability to promote the implementation of scientific advances into everyday clinical practice. Achieving this goal will involve focus in 4 areas: (1) expanding the capacity for global randomized controlled trials; (2) deepening the focus on implementation science; (3) increasing attention to healthcare disparities and their origins, with growing momentum toward equity; and (4) expanding PERN's global reach through addition of sites and networks from resource-restricted regions. Through these actions, PERN will be able to build on successes to face the challenges ahead and meet the needs of acutely ill and injured children throughout the world.

Practice Changing Articles in Neuroanesthesiology and Neurocritical Care in Recent Years: A Literature Review

Background

Neuroanesthesiology and neurocritical care are constantly evolving branches of clinical neuroscience, and patient management is often influenced by literature such as randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Many controversies still exist in the management of neurologically injured patients, and most research in this field does not translate into significant changes in clinical practice.

Objective

This review aims to discuss studies of clinical importance published in preeminent journals over the time period 2017-2020, which may have the potential to influence our current management protocols.

Methods

In this review, key articles have been selected to represent neuroemergencies where recent evidence may prompt changes in practice. In preparing this article, contents of prominent journals between 2017 and 2020 were reviewed, and relevant articles were also identified from abstraction services. Areas chosen for consideration are high-quality trials researching the management of pathologies such as epilepsy, traumatic brain injury and acute ischemic stroke, cortical venous sinus thrombosis, as well as hemorrhagic stroke. For each subject, a brief review of the article is followed by "take home" points.

Conclusion

We have attempted to perform a review of some of the highest impact medical journals from 2017 till 2020 and have summarized articles with the potential to change clinical practices for readers so that management protocols for acute neuroemergencies to ensure good outcomes may be formulated.

Rapid administration of undiluted intravenous levetiracetam

OBJECTIVE

Operational delays have the potential to lead to suboptimal time to seizure control during status epilepticus. Levetiracetam (LEV) is an urgent control antiepileptic medication that offers relative lack of adverse effects and ease of monitoring. There are limited data published demonstrating safety and tolerability of undiluted rapid intravenous (IV) push of LEV in doses of 1000 mg or less. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety of IV push administration of LEV doses up to 4500 mg.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, observational, cohort analysis of adult patients who received at least one dose of undiluted IV push LEV from October 15, 2019 to August 31, 2020 at a large academic medical center in Phoenix, Arizona. Outcomes of interest include safety and tolerability of rapid administration of undiluted LEV.

RESULTS

There were 953 unique patients included during the study period. LEV was a new medication for witnessed or suspected seizure in 51.9% of patients, and 40.7% of patients had a documented history of epilepsy or seizure disorder. There were 8561 undiluted IV push LEV doses administered, 3674 (42.9%) of which were greater than 1000 mg. LEV was administered most often through a peripheral IV (79.1%). There were 12 patients with documented adverse drug events during the study period, with four potentially directly related to IV push LEV administration. These events were limited to local injection site reactions and included redness, burning, and loss of a peripheral IV line.

SIGNIFICANCE

Rapid IV administration of undiluted LEV is both safe and tolerable in doses of up to 4500 mg, allowing for rapid drug administration, which is paramount during neurologic emergencies.

[Paediatric Life Support]

The European Resuscitation Council (ERC) Paediatric Life Support (PLS) guidelines are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR). This section provides guidelines on the management of critically ill or injured infants, children and adolescents before, during and after respiratory/cardiac arrest.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam and phenytoin in the treatment of established status epilepticus: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Status epilepticus (SE) is the second most critical neurological illness after cerebrovascular disease. Phenytoin has traditionally been considered the second-line drug of first choice after failure of first-line treatment using benzodiazepines. In recent years, levetiracetam has been proposed as a potential substitute for phenytoin. To comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam and phenytoin in the treatment of patients with established SE, we integrated the data from 11 eligible studies and conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. The PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched to identify eligible articles reporting outcomes including clinical seizure cessation within 60 min, clinical recurrence rate within 24 h, good final outcome at discharge, and adverse events (AEs) of treatment with levetiracetam and phenytoin. Our study included a total of 11 trials including a total of 1933 patients. The outcomes showed that the pooled Risk Raito (RR) of clinical seizure cessation within 60 min was 1.08 (95% CI = 1.02-1.14, P = 0.01). The pooled RR of clinical recurrence rate within 24 h was 1.03 (95% CI = 0.66-1.59, P = 0.91). The pooled RR of AEs was 0.83 (95% CI = 0.57-1.21, P = 0.34). The pooled RRs of life-threatening hypotension and acute respiratory depression were 0.29 (95% CI = 0.10-0.81, P = 0.02) and 0.63 (95% CI = 0.40-0.98, P = 0.04), respectively. Levetiracetam might be more effective than phenytoin for the treatment of established SE and is associated with a lower incidence of more serious AEs. Levetiracetam can be used as an alternative to phenytoin for the treatment of benzodiazepine-refractory SE.

Pick Your Poison but Pick It Wisely: Choosing a Second-Line Medication for the Management of Status Epilepticus

[Box: see text]

Efficacy and Safety of Levetiracetam vs. Phenytoin as Second Line Antiseizure Medication for Pediatric Convulsive Status Epilepticus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam (LEV) in comparison to phenytoin (PHT) as second line antiseizure medication (ASM) for Pediatric convulsive status epilepticus (SE).

DATA SOURCE

PubMed, Embase, Google scholar/Google, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing LEV and PHT as second line agent for convulsive SE in children <18 years published between 1 January 2000 and 30 November 2020.

DATA EXTRACTION

The data were pooled regarding the proportion of children achieving seizure cessation within 5-60 min of completion of study drug infusion (primary outcome); and seizure cessation within 5 min, time to achieve seizure cessation, seizure recurrence between 1 to 24 h, intubation and cardiovascular instability (secondary outcomes). Data were analyzed using RevMan version 5.4 and quality analysis was done using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Twelve RCTs with 2293 children were included. Seizure cessation within 5-60 min was similar with both the drugs [82% in LEV vs. 77.5% in PHT, risk ratio (RR) = 1.04, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.97-1.11, p = 0.30]. Seizure recurrences within 1-24 h was higher with PHT in comparison to LEV (16.6% vs. 9.7%, RR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.44-0.90, p = 0.01). Higher proportion of children in PHT group required intubation and mechanical ventilation (21.4% vs. 14.2%, RR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.30-0.98, p = 0.04). Seizure cessation within 5 min, time to achieve seizure cessation, and cardiovascular instability were similar with both the drugs. Three RCTs were at low risk of bias and nine were at high risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of LEV is similar to PHT as second line ASM for Pediatric convulsive SE. Seizure recurrences between 1 to24 h and requirement of intubation and mechanical ventilation were significantly higher with PHT in comparison to LEV.

A Comparison of Seizure Prophylaxis: Phenytoin Versus Levetiracetam

Phenytoin and levetiracetam are both antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) used for seizure prophylaxis. However, to date, there is a paucity of literature comparing their relative efficacies. In this narrative review, we seek to determine if there is greater advantage between the two AEDs, levetiracetam and phenytoin. Phenytoin is the more traditional AED of the two as it has been medically used for a much longer time than levetiracetam. However, levetiracetam, the newer AED of the two, has fewer side effects than phenytoin and fewer drug-drug interactions. Although past studies have aimed to compare the efficacy of phenytoin versus levetiracetam, there is no clear consensus as to if there is a clinical advantage to one over the other. Here, we have analyzed several studies published between 2013 and 2020 in the hopes of having a better understanding of which AED is more efficient in preventing seizures. Many factors can contribute to determining which AED is the better fit for patients, including pricing, risk for adverse drug effects, and level of patient monitoring. After analysis of past research, the more advantageous AED still remains unclear. Future research must be conducted that involve large patient populations, stratifying age populations, and studies analyzing cost-effectiveness to clearly determine if there is indeed a more advantageous AED between levetiracetam and phenytoin.

Early Neurologic Recovery, Practice Pattern Variation, and the Risk of Endotracheal Intubation Following Established Status Epilepticus

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the association between early neurologic recovery, practice pattern variation, and endotracheal intubation during established status epilepticus, we performed a secondary analysis within the cohort of patients enrolled in the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial (ESETT).

METHODS

We evaluated factors associated with the endpoint of endotracheal intubation occurring within 120 minutes of ESETT study drug initiation. We defined a blocked, stepwise multivariate regression, examining 4 phases during status epilepticus management: (1) baseline characteristics, (2) acute treatment, (3) 20-minute neurologic recovery, and (4) 60-minute recovery, including seizure cessation and improving responsiveness.

RESULTS

Of 478 patients, 117 (24.5%) were intubated within 120 minutes. Among high-enrolling sites, intubation rates ranged from 4% to 32% at pediatric sites and 19% to 39% at adult sites. Baseline characteristics, including seizure precipitant, benzodiazepine dosing, and admission vital signs, provided limited discrimination for predicting intubation (area under the curve [AUC] 0.63). However, treatment at sites with an intubation rate in the highest (vs lowest) quartile strongly predicted endotracheal intubation independently of other treatment variables (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 8.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.08-21.4, model AUC 0.70). Site-specific variation was the factor most strongly associated with endotracheal intubation after adjustment for 20-minute (aOR 23.4, 95% CI 6.99-78.3, model AUC 0.88) and 60-minute (aOR 14.7, 95% CI 3.20-67.5, model AUC 0.98) neurologic recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Endotracheal intubation after established status epilepticus is strongly associated with site-specific practice pattern variation, independently of baseline characteristics, and early neurologic recovery and should not alone serve as a clinical trial endpoint in established status epilepticus.

TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01960075.

Levetiracetam versus fosphenytoin as a second-line treatment after diazepam for status epilepticus: study protocol for a multicenter non-inferiority designed randomized control trial

BACKGROUND

Status epilepticus (SE) is an emergency condition for which rapid and secured cessation is important. Phenytoin and fosphenytoin, the prodrug of phenytoin with less severe adverse effects, have been recommended as second-line treatments. However, fosphenytoin causes severe adverse events, such as hypotension and arrhythmia. Levetiracetam reportedly has similar efficacy and higher safety for SE; however, evidence to support its use for adult SE is lacking. In the present study, a non-inferiority designed multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) is being conducted to compare levetiracetam with fosphenytoin after diazepam as a second-line treatment for SE.

METHODS

This multicenter, prospective, and open-label RCT is conducted in emergency departments. Between December 23, 2019, and March 31, 2023, 176 patients with convulsive SE transported to an emergency room will be randomized into a fosphenytoin group and levetiracetam group at a ratio of 1:1. The definition of SE is "continuous seizures longer than 5 min or discrete seizures longer than 2 min with intervening consciousness disturbance." In both groups, diazepam is initially administered at 1-20 mg, followed by intravenous fosphenytoin at 22.5 mg/kg or intravenous levetiracetam at 1000-3000 mg. The primary outcome is the seizure cessation rate within 30 min. Seizure recurrence within 24 h, severe adverse events, and intubation rate within 24 h are secondary outcomes.

DISCUSSION

The present study was approved and conducted as an initiative study of the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine. If non-inferiority is identified, the society will pursue an application for the national health insurance coverage of levetiracetam for SE via a public knowledge-based application.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Japan Registry of Clinical Trials jRCTs031190160 . Registered on December 13, 2019.

Levetiracetam for convulsive status epilepticus in childhood: systematic review and meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Prolonged seizures are life-threatening emergencies associated with significant morbidity.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam in treating convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) in childhood.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTIONS

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched from inception up to April 2020. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included children aged 1 month-18 years were assessed. Two reviewers performed data assessment and extraction.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Ten studies out of the 20 637 citations identified were included.

MAIN OUTCOMES

Cessation of seizure activities, time to cessation of seizure activities, need for rapid sequence intubation (RSI), intensive care unit (ICU) admission, recurrence of seizures at 24 hours, adverse events and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

We included 10 RCTs (n=1907). There was no significant difference in cessation of seizure activities when levetiracetam was compared with phenytoin (risk ratio (RR)=1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09), levetiracetam to fosphenytoin (RR=1.16, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.35) or levetiracetam to valproate (RR=1.10, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.27). No differences were found in relation to the timing of cessation of seizures for levetiracetam versus phenytoin (mean difference (MD)=-0.45, 95% CI -1.83 to 0.93), or levetiracetam versus fosphenytoin (MD=-0.70, 95% CI -4.26 to 2.86). There were no significant differences with regard to ICU admissions, adverse events, recurrence of seizure at 24 hours, RSI and all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSION

Levetiracetam is comparable to phenytoin, fosphenytoin and valproate as a second line treatment of paediatric CSE.

[Efficacy and safety of levetiracetam versus phenytoin as second-line drugs for the treatment of children with convulsive status epilepticus: a Meta analysis]

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam (LEV) versus phenytoin (PHT) as second-line drugs for the treatment of convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) in children.

METHODS

English and Chinese electronic databases were searched for the randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of LEV and PHT as second-line drugs for the treatment of childhood CSE. RevMan 5.3 software was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Seven studies with 1 434 children were included. The Meta analysis showed that compared with the PHT group, the LEV group achieved a significantly higher control rate of CSE (RR=1.12, 95%CI:1.00-1.24, P=0.05), but there was no significant difference between the two groups in the recurrence rate of epilepsy within 24 hours (RR=0.82, 95%CI:0.22-3.11, P=0.77) and the rate of further antiepileptic drug therapy (RR=0.97, 95%CI:0.64-1.45, P=0.87). There was no significant difference in the incidence rate of adverse events between the two groups (RR=0.77, 95%CI:0.55-1.09, P=0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

LEV has a better clinical effect than PHT in the treatment of children with CSE and does not increase the incidence rate of adverse events.

Pharmacotherapy for Nonconvulsive Seizures and Nonconvulsive Status Epilepticus

Most seizures in critically ill patients are nonconvulsive. A significant number of neurological and medical conditions can be complicated by nonconvulsive seizures (NCSs) and nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE), with brain infections, hemorrhages, global hypoxia, sepsis, and recent neurosurgery being the most prominent etiologies. Prolonged NCSs and NCSE can lead to adverse neurological outcomes. Early recognition requires a high degree of suspicion and rapid and appropriate duration of continuous electroencephalogram (cEEG) monitoring. Although high quality research evaluating treatment with antiseizure medications and long-term outcome is still lacking, it is probable that expeditious pharmacological management of NCSs and NCSE may prevent refractoriness and further neurological injury. There is limited evidence on pharmacotherapy for NCSs and NCSE, although a few clinical trials encompassing both convulsive and NCSE have demonstrated similar efficacy of different intravenous (IV) antiseizure medications (ASMs), including levetiracetam, valproate, lacosamide and fosphenytoin. The choice of specific ASMs lies on tolerability and safety since critically ill patients frequently have impaired renal and/or hepatic function as well as hematological/hemodynamic lability. Treatment frequently requires more than one ASM and occasionally escalation to IV anesthetic drugs. When multiple ASMs are required, combining different mechanisms of action should be considered. There are several enteral ASMs that could be used when IV ASM options have been exhausted. Refractory NCSE is not uncommon, and its treatment requires a very judicious selection of ASMs aiming at reducing seizure burden along with management of the underlying condition.

Refractory and Super-refractory Status Epilepticus

Context

Refractory status epilepticus (RSE) and super-refractory status epilepticus (SRSE) are neurological emergencies with considerable mortality and morbidity. In this paper, we provide an overview of causes, evaluation, treatment, and consequences of RSE and SRSE, reflecting the lack of high-quality evidence to inform therapeutic approach.

Sources

This is a narrative review based on personal practice and experience. Nevertheless, we searched MEDLINE (using PubMed and OvidSP vendors) and Cochrane central register of controlled trials, using appropriate keywords to incorporate recent evidence.

Results

Refractory status epilepticus is commonly defined as an acute convulsive seizure that fails to respond to two or more anti-seizure medications including at least one nonbenzodiazepine drug. Super-refractory status epilepticus is a status epilepticus that continues for ≥24 hours despite anesthetic treatment, or recurs on an attempted wean of the anesthetic regimen. Both can occur in patients known to have epilepsy or de novo, with increasing recognition of autoimmune and genetic causes. Electroencephalography monitoring is essential to monitor treatment response in refractory/super-refractory status epilepticus, and to diagnose non-convulsive status epilepticus. The mainstay of treatment for these disorders includes anesthetic infusions, primarily midazolam, ketamine, and pentobarbital. Dietary, immunological, and surgical treatments are viable in selected patients. Management is challenging due to multiple acute complications and long-term adverse consequences.

Conclusions

We have provided a synopsis of best practices for diagnosis and management of refractory/superrefractory status epilepticus and highlighted the lack of sufficient high-quality evidence to drive decision making, ending with a brief foray into avenues for future research.

Advances in the management of generalized convulsive status epilepticus: what have we learned?

Convulsive status epilepticus is the most serious manifestation of an epileptic diathesis. In the early stages (5-30 min), there exists class A evidence to support the efficacy of benzodiazepines as first-line treatment. As status epilepticus progresses into the later stages, the evidence for treatment becomes less robust until we are depending upon short case series and case reports for the treatment of refractory status epilepticus. However, the past year saw the publication of three randomized controlled trials in the setting of benzodiazepine-resistant established convulsive status epilepticus: the EcLiPSE and ConSEPT studies, compared levetiracetam to phenytoin in children; and the ESETT study compared fosphenytoin, levetiracetam and sodium valproate in adults and children. In addition, the emergence of data from the SENSE study, a multicentre multinational prospective cohort study and the publication of a systematic review and meta-analysis of the mortality of status epilepticus over the past 30 years, has brought the treatment of status epilepticus into sharp focus. In this update we provide a detailed analysis of these studies and their impact on clinical practice. We review contentious areas of management in status epilepticus where a consensus is lacking and advance the case for more research on existing and alternative treatment strategies.

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Paediatric Life Support

These European Resuscitation Council Paediatric Life Support (PLS) guidelines, are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. This section provides guidelines on the management of critically ill infants and children, before, during and after cardiac arrest.

[S2k guidelines: status epilepticus in adulthood : Guidelines of the German Society for Neurology]

This S2k guideline on diagnosis and treatment of status epilepticus (SE) in adults is based on the last published version from 2021. New definitions and evidence were included in the guideline and the clinical pathway. A seizures lasting longer than 5 minutes (or ≥ 2 seizures over more than 5 mins without intermittend recovery to the preictal neurological state. Initial diagnosis should include a cCT or, if possible, an MRI. The EEG is highly relevant for diagnosis and treatment-monitoring of non-convulsive SE and for the exclusion or diagnosis of psychogenic non-epileptic seizures. As the increasing evidence supports the relevance of inflammatory comorbidities (e.g. pneumonia) related clinical chemistry should be obtained and repeated over the course of a SE treatment, and antibiotic therapy initiated if indicated.Treatment is applied on four levels: 1. Initial SE: An adequate dose of benzodiazepine is given i.v., i.m., or i.n.; 2. Benzodiazepine-refractory SE: I.v. drugs of 1st choice are levetiracetam or valproate; 3. Refractory SE (RSE) or 4. Super-refractory SE (SRSE): I.v. propofol or midazolam alone or in combination or thiopental in anaesthetic doses are given. In focal non-convulsive RSE the induction of a therapeutic coma depends on the circumstances and is not mandatory. In SRSE the ketogenic diet should be given. I.v. ketamine or inhalative isoflorane can be considered. In selected cased electroconvulsive therapy or, if a resectable epileptogenic zone can be defined epilepsy surgery can be applied. I.v. allopregnanolone or systemic hypothermia should not be used.

Continuous EEG use and status epilepticus treatment in Australasia: a practice survey of Australian and New Zealand epileptologists

Objective

Continuous electroencephalography (cEEG) is increasingly used to detect non-convulsive seizures in critically ill patients but is not widely practised in Australasia. Use of cEEG is also influencing the management of status epilepticus (SE), which is rapidly evolving. We aimed to survey Australian and New Zealand cEEG use and current treatment of SE

Methods

A web-based survey was distributed to Epilepsy Society of Australia (ESA) members, between October and November 2019. Adult and paediatric neurologists/epileptologists with ESA membership involved in clinical epilepsy care and cEEG interpretation were invited to participate.

Results

Thirty-five paediatric/adult epileptologists completed the survey, 51% with over 10 years of consultant experience. cEEG was always available for only 31% of respondents, with the majority having no or only ad hoc access to cEEG. Lack of funding (74%) and personnel (71%) were the most common barriers to performing cEEG. Although experience with SE was common, responses varied regarding treatment approaches for both convulsive and non-convulsive SE. Escalation to anaesthetic treatment of convulsive SE tended to occur later than international guideline recommendations. There was general agreement that formal training in cEEG and national guidelines for SE/cEEG were needed.

Conclusions

cEEG availability remains limited in Australia, with lack of funding and resourcing being key commonly identified barriers. Current opinions on the use of cEEG and treatment of SE vary reflecting the complexity of management and a rapidly evolving field. An Australian-based guideline for the management of SE, including the role of cEEG is recommended.

Seven-step framework to enhance practitioner explanations and parental understandings of research without prior consent in paediatric emergency and critical care trials

BACKGROUND

Alternatives to prospective informed consent enable the conduct of paediatric emergency and critical care trials. Research without prior consent (RWPC) involves practitioners approaching parents after an intervention has been given and seeking consent for their child to continue in the trial. As part of an embedded study in the 'Emergency treatment with Levetiracetam or Phenytoin in Status Epilepticus in children' (EcLiPSE) trial, we explored how practitioners described the trial and RWPC during recruitment discussions, and how well this information was understood by parents. We aimed to develop a framework to assist trial conversations in future paediatric emergency and critical care trials using RWPC.

METHODS

Qualitative methods embedded within the EcLiPSE trial processes, including audiorecorded practitioner-parent trial discussions and telephone interviews with parents. We analysed data using thematic analysis, drawing on the Realpe et al (2016) model for recruitment to trials.

RESULTS

We analysed 76 recorded trial discussions and conducted 30 parent telephone interviews. For 19 parents, we had recorded trial discussion and interview data, which were matched for analysis. Parental understanding of the EcLiPSE trial was enhanced when practitioners: provided a comprehensive description of trial aims; explained the reasons for RWPC; discussed uncertainty about which intervention was best; provided a balanced description of trial intervention; provided a clear explanation about randomisation and provided an opportunity for questions. We present a seven-step framework to assist recruitment practice in trials involving RWPC.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a framework to enhance recruitment practice and parental understanding in paediatric emergency and critical care trials involving RWPC. Further testing of this framework is required.

Emergency management of the paediatric patient with convulsive status epilepticus

This guideline addresses the emergency management of convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) in children and infants older than 1 month of age. It replaces a previous position statement from 2011, and includes a new treatment algorithm and table of recommended medications based on new evidence and reflecting the evolution of clinical practice over the past several years. This statement emphasizes the importance of timely pharmacological management of CSE, and includes some guidance for diagnostic approach and supportive care.

La prise en charge d’urgence du patient pédiatrique en état de mal épileptique convulsif

Les présentes lignes directrices portent sur la prise en charge d’urgence de l’état de mal épileptique convulsif chez les nourrissons âgés de plus d’un mois et les enfants. Elles remplacent un document de principes publié en 2011 et comprennent un nouvel algorithme thérapeutique, de même qu’un tableau des médicaments recommandés en fonction de nouvelles données probantes qui reflètent l’évolution de la pratique clinique des quelques dernières années. Le présent document de principes souligne l’importance d’un traitement pharmacologique rapide de l’état de mal épileptique convulsif et contient des conseils relativement à la démarche diagnostique et aux soins de soutien.