Blood pressure changes after intravenous fosphenytoin and levetiracetam in patients with acute cerebral symptoms

IV fosphenytoin in obese patients: Dosing strategies, safety, and efficacy

Background

Previous studies evaluated the disposition of IV phenytoin loading doses and found that obese patients had increased drug distribution into excess body weight, larger volumes of distribution, and longer half-lives when compared to their nonobese counterparts. We assess the safety and efficacy of fosphenytoin loading doses in patients with different body mass indices (BMIs).

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted in 410 patients who received fosphenytoin. Patients were divided into 2 groups: BMI <30 (nonobese) and BMI ≥30 (obese). Patient demographics, fosphenytoin dose administered in mg/kg body weight, renal and liver function tests, fosphenytoin drug levels, and pre- and post-fosphenytoin administration vital signs were collected to assess for adverse events. Necessity of additional antiepileptic loading doses was used as a surrogate for clinical efficacy.

Results

The median dose of fosphenytoin administered was 19 mg/kg (interquartile range 15-20). The most frequently encountered adverse event was hypotension, which occurred in 39% of the cohort. Using a Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons, there were no differences in adverse events between the 2 groups. The need for additional antiepileptic loading doses was not different between the 2 groups (p = 0.07).

Conclusions

The incidence of adverse events and the need for repeat loading antiepileptic medications was similar between the 2 groups. From our findings, the patients in our study did not receive empiric loading dose adjustments and the current method of loading fosphenytoin achieves similar outcomes, regardless of the patient's BMI.

Prophylactic Antiepileptic Drug Use and Outcome in the Ethnic/Racial Variations of Intracerebral Hemorrhage Study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The role of antiepileptic drug (AED) prophylaxis after intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) remains unclear. This analysis describes prevalence of prophylactic AED use, as directed by treating clinicians, in a prospective ICH cohort and tests the hypothesis that it is associated with poor outcome.

METHODS

Analysis included 744 patients with ICH enrolled in the Ethnic/Racial Variations of Intracerebral Hemorrhage (ERICH) study before November 2012. Baseline clinical characteristics and AED use were recorded in standardized fashion. ICH location and volume were recorded from baseline neuroimaging. We analyzed differences in patient characteristics by AED prophylaxis, and we used logistic regression to test whether AED prophylaxis was associated with poor outcome. The primary outcome was 3-month modified Rankin Scale score, with 4 to 6 considered poor outcome.

RESULTS

AEDs were used for prophylaxis in 289 (39%) of the 744 subjects; of these, levetiracetam was used in 89%. Patients with lobar ICH, craniotomy, or larger hematomas were more likely to receive prophlyaxis. Although prophylactic AED use was associated with poor outcome in an unadjusted model (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.88; P=0.03), this association was no longer significant after adjusting for clinical and demographic characteristics (odds ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.65; P=0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence that AED use (predominantly levetiracetam) is independently associated with poor outcome. A prospective study is required to assess for a more modest effect of AED use on outcome after ICH.

The safety of lacosamide for treatment of seizures and seizure prophylaxis in adult hospitalized patients

BACKGROUND

Lacosamide (LCM) is a newer antiepileptic drug (AED) with favorable properties for hospitalized patients including intravenous formulation, minimal hepatic metabolism, and no adverse respiratory effects. We sought to determine the safety profile of LCM in hospitalized patients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective medical record review of patients who received LCM between July 1, 2009, and January 31, 2010, at Mayo Clinic Hospital. Data included demographics, LCM dosing, concomitant AED therapy, documented seizure activity, hemodynamic variables, electrocardiogram (ECG), and laboratory data. Adverse drug reaction and drug-drug interactions were reviewed.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients were identified. No major hypotension or serious cardiac arrhythmias occurred. Heart rate increased, however, in seizure group compared with the prophylaxis group 2 hours postdrug infusion (median heart rate = 86 vs 164). The ECGs demonstrated a mean PR interval prolongation of about 6 milliseconds (ms) after LCM initiation (mean PR 185.5 ms, compared with baseline ECG mean of 179.3 ms). Laboratory data revealed no clinically significant changes 24 hours after LCM initiation. Three patients developed adverse events (9.4%): One with altered mental state and exceptionally prolonged ECG PR interval (212 vs 178 ms baseline); One with unexplained thrombocytopenia; and a third patient with dizziness, all of which resolved after drug discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

The LCM demonstrated ECG PR prolongation as previously reported without systemic hypotension, with no discernable drug-drug interactions in hospitalized patients. About 9% of patients had transient adverse drug reactions after LCM, namely alteration in mental state, unexplained thrombocytopenia, and dizziness, which stopped after discontinuation of the drug.

Status epilepticus: current treatment strategies

Status epilepticus is a neurological emergency that is commonly encountered by the neurohospitalist. Successful treatment depends upon the recognition of prolonged seizure activity and the acute mobilization of available resources. Pharmacologic treatment regimens have been shown to decrease the time needed for successful control of seizures and have provided for the rapid administration of anticonvulsant medications. Treatment strategies have evolved so that clinicians can administer effective doses of medication by whatever routes of administration are immediately available. Traditional algorithms for the treatment of status epilepticus have used a stepwise approach to the administration of first-, second-, and third-order medications. More recent options have included aggressive anesthetic doses of medications while second-line medications are being titrated.

Status epilepticus: a review, with emphasis on refractory cases

Status epilepticus is among the most dramatic of clinical presentations encountered by emergency room physicians, neurologists, neurosurgeons and intensivists. While progress in its management has been aided significantly with an increasing number of effective treatment options, improved diagnostic methods and more effective monitoring, poor outcomes and diagnostic failures are still frequently encountered. Refractory cases still carry significant morbidity and mortality rates, including poor cognitive outcomes. This review discusses basic pathophysiology and management of status epilepticus, neuroimaging findings, the role of continuous electroencephalogram monitoring and nonconvulsive status epilepticusas well as recent developments in treatment options for refractory cases.