Comparison of short-duration levetiracetam with extended-course phenytoin for seizure prophylaxis after subarachnoid hemorrhage

Levetiracetam dosing for seizure prophylaxis in neurocritical care patients

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Levetiracetam is used for seizure prophylaxis in patients presenting with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) or traumatic brain injury (TBI). We aim to characterize the optimal levetiracetam dosage for seizure prophylaxis.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included adult patients at an academic tertiary hospital presenting with SAH or TBI who received levetiracetam at a total daily dose (TDD) equivalent to or greater than 1000 mg. The primary outcome was combined seizure incidence, including clinical and subclinical seizures.

RESULTS

We identified 139 patients (49.6% male, mean age 53 years) for inclusion. For patients receiving a 1000-mg TDD, the administration was 500 mg twice daily. For patients receiving >1000-mg TDD, 77/78 patients received 1000 mg twice daily and one patient received 750 mg twice daily. Patients receiving 1000-mg TDD had a higher seizure incidence than those receiving >1000-mg TDD (p = 0.01), despite no difference in examined confounders, including history of alcoholism (p = 0.49), benzodiazepine use (p = 0.28), or propofol use (p = 0.17). No difference in adverse effects was observed (anemia, p = 0.44; leukopenia, p = 0.60; thrombocytopenia, p = 0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients may experience a reduced incidence of clinical and electroencephalographic seizures with levetiracetam dosing >1000-mg TDD.

2023 Guideline for the Management of Patients With Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Guideline From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

AIM

The "2023 Guideline for the Management of Patients With Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage" replaces the 2012 "Guidelines for the Management of Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage." The 2023 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.

METHODS

A comprehensive search for literature published since the 2012 guideline, derived from research principally involving human subjects, published in English, and indexed in MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline, was conducted between March 2022 and June 2022. In addition, the guideline writing group reviewed documents on related subject matter previously published by the American Heart Association. Newer studies published between July 2022 and November 2022 that affected recommendation content, Class of Recommendation, or Level of Evidence were included if appropriate. Structure: Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage is a significant global public health threat and a severely morbid and often deadly condition. The 2023 aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage guideline provides recommendations based on current evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to preventing, diagnosing, and managing patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' and their families' and caregivers' interests. Many recommendations from the previous aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

Pharmacokinetic considerations surrounding the use of levetiracetam for seizure prophylaxis in neurocritical care - an overview

INTRODUCTION

Levetiracetam (LEV) is one of the most widely used anti-seizure medications (ASMs) in clinical practice. This is due both to a different mechanism of action when compared to other ASMs and its easy handling. Indeed, because of its interesting pharmacokinetic properties, it is often used outside of the labelled indications, notably in the neurocritical setting as prophylaxis of epileptic seizures.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search was conducted and the most relevant studies on the pharmacokinetic properties of LEV were selected by two independent investigators. Current evidence on the use of ASM prophylaxis in the neurocritical setting was also reviewed, highlighting and discussing the strengths and limits of LEV as drug of choice for anti-epileptic prophylaxis in this scenario.

EXPERT OPINION

LEV has a "near-ideal" pharmacokinetic profile, which makes it an attractive drug for ASM prophylaxis in neurocritical care. However, current recommendations restrict ASMs prophylaxis to very selected circumstances and the role of LEV is marginal. Moreover, studies are generally designed to compare LEV versus phenytoin, whereas studies comparing LEV versus placebo are lacking. Further randomized trials will be needed to better elucidate LEV utility and its neuroprotective role in the neurocritical setting.

Neurocritical care management of poor-grade subarachnoid hemorrhage: Unjustified nihilism to reasonable optimism

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Historically, overall outcomes for patients with high-grade subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) have been poor. Generally, between physicians, either reluctance to treat, or selectivity in treating such patients has been the paradigm. Recent studies have shown that early and aggressive care leads to significant improvement in survival rates and favorable outcomes of grade V SAH patients. With advancements in both neurocritical care and end-of-life care, non-treatment or selective treatment of grade V SAH patients is rarely justified. Current paradigm shifts towards early and aggressive care in such cases may lead to improved outcomes for many more patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a detailed review of the current literature regarding neurointensive management strategies in high-grade SAH, discussing multiple aspects. We discussed the neurointensive care management protocols for grade V SAH patients.

RESULTS

Acutely, intracranial pressure control is of utmost importance with external ventricular drain placement, sedation, optimization of cerebral perfusion pressure, osmotherapy and hyperventilation, as well as cardiopulmonary support through management of hypotension and hypertension.

CONCLUSIONS

Advancements of care in SAH patients make it unethical to deny treatment to poor Hunt and Hess grade patients. Early and aggressive treatment results in a significant improvement in survival rate and favorable outcome in such patients.

Levetiracetam for Seizure Prophylaxis in Neurocritical Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Levetiracetam is commonly used for seizure prophylaxis in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), traumatic brain injury (TBI), supratentorial neurosurgery, and spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). However, its efficacy, optimal dosing, and the adverse events associated with levetiracetam prophylaxis remain unclear.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL) database was conducted from January 1, 2000, to October 30, 2020, including articles addressing treatment with levetiracetam for seizure prophylaxis after SAH, ICH, TBI, and supratentorial neurosurgery. Non-English, pediatric (aged < 18 years), preclinical, reviews, case reports, and articles that included patients with a preexisting seizure condition or epilepsy were excluded. The coprimary meta-analyses examined first seizure events in (1) levetiracetam versus no antiseizure medication and (2) levetiracetam versus other antiseizure medications in all ICH, TBI, SAH, and supratentorial neurosurgery populations. Secondary meta-analyses evaluated the same comparator groups in individual disease populations. Risk of bias in non-randomised studies - of interventions (ROBINS-I) and risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2) tools were used to assess risk of bias.

RESULTS

A total of 30 studies (n = 6 randomized trials, n = 9 prospective studies, and n = 15 retrospective studies), including 7609 patients (n = 4737 with TBI, n = 701 with SAH, n = 261 with ICH, and n = 1910 with neurosurgical diseases) were included in analyses. Twenty-seven of 30 (90%) studies demonstrated moderate to severe risk of bias, and 11 of 30 (37%) studies used low-dosage levetiracetam (250-500 mg twice daily). In the primary meta-analyses, there were no differences in seizure events for levetiracetam prophylaxis (n = 906) versus no antiseizure medication (n = 2728; odds ratio [OR] 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-1.16, P = 0.23, fixed-effect, I² = 26%, P = 0.23 for heterogeneity) or levetiracetam (n = 1950) versus other antiseizure prophylaxis (n = 2289; OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.55-1.28, P = 0.41, random-effects, I² = 49%, P = 0.005 for heterogeneity). Only patients with supratentorial neurosurgical diseases benefited from levetiracetam compared with other antiseizure medications (median 0.70 seizure events per-patient-year with levetiracetam versus 2.20 seizure events per-patient-year for other antiseizure medications, OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.20-0.58, P < 0.001, fixed-effects, I² = 39%, P = 0.13 for heterogeneity). There were no significant differences in meta-analyses of patients with ICH, SAH, or TBI. Adverse events of any severity were reported in a median of 8% of patients given levetiracetam compared with 21% of patients in comparator groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current moderately to seriously biased heterogeneous data, which frequently used low and possibly subtherapeutic doses of levetiracetam, our meta-analyses did not demonstrate significant reductions in seizure incidence and neither supports nor refutes the use of levetiracetam prophylaxis in TBI, SAH, or ICH. Levetiracetam may be preferred post supratentorial neurosurgery. More high-quality randomized trials of prophylactic levetiracetam are warranted.

The effect of prophylactic antiepileptic medications in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage patients: A retrospective review

OBJECTIVE

The current literary evidence suggests but does not heavily endorse the use of prophylactic antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Literature continues to emerge suggesting not only a lack of efficacy but associated poor outcomes. This study is a retrospective review comparing seizure incidence in aneurysmal subarachnoid patients between those given prophylactic AEDs and those not.

METHODS

With IRB approval, a retrospective chart review was performed on all aneurysmal subarachnoid patients from 2012 to 2019 at the University of Mississippi Medical center. Univariate and Multivariate analysis was performed using SAS. Primary outcome was seizure incidence between groups. Factors associated with seizure and poor outcome were also investigated.

RESULTS

348 patients were identified: 120 in the AED group, and 228 patients in the non-AED group. There was no significant difference in mean age, gender, ethnicity, HH scores, treatment modality, or mean aneurysm size. The AED group had a higher history of prior aneurysmal rupture (6.7% vs. 1.3%, p = 0.01) and associated intracranial hemorrhage (22.5% vs. 10.5%, p = 0.0004). There was no significant difference in seizure incidence between the two groups (8.3% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.24). On multivariate analysis, aneurysm clipping compared to coiling (OR 3.8, p = 0.012) and delayed cerebral ischemia (OR 2.77, p = 0.023) were associated with seizures. DCI (OR 8.34), HH grade, Age (OR 1.07), Seizure (8.34), and AED use (1.7) were significantly associated with poor outcome.

CONCLUSION

This retrospective review adds to the evidence that prophylactic AED use in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage patients has not been proven to improve seizure rates and may result in worse patient outcomes.

Duration and choices of prophylactic anticonvulsants in subarachnoid hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The use of prophylactic anticonvulsants among patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is controversial. We sought to assess the effectiveness of different durations of prophylactic antiepileptic drug (AED) use among SAH patients. We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases until March 1, 2020. Randomized controlled trials or observational studies comparing different durations or different drugs were selected. The primary outcome was poor clinical outcomes. The secondary outcome was in-hospital seizure. Bayesian network meta-analysis was also performed to indirectly compare the effectiveness of different prophylaxes. A total of 5 papers were included. Three studies with a total of 959 patients were included in the analysis of the primary outcome; the results showed that long-term exposure to prophylactic AEDs (more than 3 days) led to poor clinical outcomes (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.01-2.39; p = 0.045). Four studies with 1024 patients were included in the analysis of the secondary outcome; the results showed no association between the duration of prophylactic AED use and the occurrence of in-hospital seizures (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.18-2.15; p = 0.447). In the network meta-analysis, no significant difference was found among the four different prophylaxes. Our findings suggested that, when compared with the short-term use, the long-term use of prophylactic AEDs in SAH patients has a similar effect on in-hospital seizure prevention but is associated with poor clinical outcomes. However, these findings were based on a small number of available studies with obvious heterogeneity in study design and different prescription regimens. Further well-designed studies are warranted to elucidate these questions.

A Randomized Trial of Brief Versus Extended Seizure Prophylaxis After Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Seizures occur in 10-20% of patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), predominantly in the acute phase. However, anticonvulsant prophylaxis remains controversial, with studies suggesting a brief course may be adequate and longer exposure may be associated with worse outcomes. Nonetheless, in the absence of controlled trials to inform practice, patients continue to receive variable chemoprophylaxis. The objective of this study was to compare brief versus extended seizure prophylaxis after aneurysmal SAH.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, single-center, randomized, open-label trial of a brief (3-day) course of levetiracetam (LEV) versus extended treatment (until hospital discharge). The primary outcome was in-hospital seizure. Secondary outcomes included drug discontinuation and functional outcome.

RESULTS

Eighty-four SAH patients had been randomized when the trial was terminated due to slow enrollment. In-hospital seizures occurred in three (9%) of 35 in the brief LEV group versus one (2%) of 49 in the extended group (p = 0.2). Ten (20%) of the extended group discontinued LEV prematurely, primarily due to sedation. Four of five seizures (including one pre-randomization) occurred in patients with early brain injury (EBI) on computed tomography (CT) scans (adjusted OR 12.5, 95% CI 1.2-122, p = 0.03). Good functional outcome (mRS 0-2) was more likely in the brief LEV group (83 vs. 61%, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

This study was underpowered to demonstrate superiority of extended LEV for seizure prophylaxis, although a trend to benefit was seen. Seizures primarily occurred in those with radiographic EBI, suggesting targeted prophylaxis may be preferable. Larger trials are required to evaluate optimal chemoprophylaxis in SAH, especially in light of worse outcomes in those receiving extended treatment.

Efficacy of levetiracetam compared with phenytoin in prevention of seizures in brain injured patients: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Early and/or late onset in patients with brain injury (BI) is associated with a poorer prognosis, and phenytoin (PHT) is standard of care to prevent seizures. Levetiracetam (LEV), an alternative antiepileptic drug, is associated with less cognitive disruption. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LEV in the prevention of brain traumatic seizures with the standard drug PHT.

METHODS

Search the publications on comparison the safety and efficacy of LEV against the standard agent PHT in prevention of traumatic seizures in BI to January 2018. After rigorous reviewing on quality, the data were extracted from eligible trials. All trials analyzed the summary hazard ratios of the endpoints of interest.

RESULTS

LEV was found not more effective than PHT in terms of overall seizure (odds ratio [OR] = 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.51-1.05; P = .09), and late seizure (OR = 0.64; 95% CI = 0.34-1.19; P = .16) occurrence. However, there is significant difference in terms of early seizure (OR = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.40-0.99; P = .04). Moreover, there were no significant differences in terms of mortality (OR = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.43-1.05; P = .08), or side effects (OR = 1.31; 95% CI = 0.80-2.15; P = .29) between groups.

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis showed that LEV prevention of seizures was associated with early seizure rates that were lower than the PHT-prolonged course of treatment. There is no statistically significant difference in the efficacy and safety profile of PHT and LEV in cases of traumatic BI.

Drug Interactions in Neurocritical Care

Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) are common and avoidable complications that are associated with poor patient outcomes. Neurocritical care patients may be at particular risk for DDIs due to alterations in pharmacokinetic profiles and exposure to medications with a high DDI risk. This review describes the principles of DDI pharmacology, common and severe DDIs in Neurocritical care, and recommendations to minimize adverse outcomes. A review of published literature was performed using PubMed by searching for 'Drug Interaction' and several high DDI risk and common neurocritical care medications. Key medication classes included anticoagulants, antimicrobials, antiepileptics, antihypertensives, sedatives, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Additional literature was also reviewed to determine the risk in neurocritical care and potential therapeutic alternatives. Clinicians should be aware of interactions in this setting, the long-term complications, and therapeutic alternatives.

Seizure prophylaxis in the neuroscience intensive care unit

Background

Seizures are a considerable complication in critically ill patients. Their incidence is significantly high in neurosciences intensive care unit patients. Seizure prophylaxis with anti-epileptic drugs is a common practice in neurosciences intensive care unit. However, its utility in patients without clinical seizure, with an underlying neurological injury, is somewhat controversial.

Body

In this article, we have reviewed the evidence for seizure prophylaxis in commonly encountered neurological conditions in neurosciences intensive care unit and discussed the possible prognostic role of continuous electroencephalography monitoring in detecting early seizures in critically ill patients.

Conclusion

Based on the current evidence and guidelines, we have proposed a presumptive protocol for seizure prophylaxis in neurosciences intensive care unit. Patients with severe traumatic brain injury and possible subarachnoid hemorrhage seem to benefit with a short course of anti-epileptic drug. In patients with other neurological illnesses, the use of continuous electroencephalography would make sense rather than indiscriminately administering anti-epileptic drug.

Korean Clinical Practice Guidelines for Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

Despite advancements in treating ruptured cerebral aneurysms, an aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) is still a grave cerebrovascular disease associated with a high rate of morbidity and mortality. Based on the literature published to date, worldwide academic and governmental committees have developed clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to propose standards for disease management in order to achieve the best treatment outcomes for aSAHs. In 2013, the Korean Society of Cerebrovascular Surgeons issued a Korean version of the CPGs for aSAHs. The group researched all articles and major foreign CPGs published in English until December 2015 using several search engines. Based on these articles, levels of evidence and grades of recommendations were determined by our society as well as by other related Quality Control Committees from neurointervention, neurology and rehabilitation medicine. The Korean version of the CPGs for aSAHs includes risk factors, diagnosis, initial management, medical and surgical management to prevent rebleeding, management of delayed cerebral ischemia and vasospasm, treatment of hydrocephalus, treatment of medical complications and early rehabilitation. The CPGs are not the absolute standard but are the present reference as the evidence is still incomplete, each environment of clinical practice is different, and there is a high probability of variation in the current recommendations. The CPGs will be useful in the fields of clinical practice and research.

A Systematic Appraisal of Neurosurgical Seizure Prophylaxis: Guidance for Critical Care Management

Clinical decisions are often made in the presence of some uncertainty. Health care should be based on a combination of scientific evidence, clinical experience, economics, patient value judgments, and preferences. Seizures are not uncommon following brain injury, surgical trauma, hemorrhage, altered brain metabolism, hypoxia, or ischemic events. The impact of seizures in the immediate aftermath of injury may be a prolonged intensive care stay or compounding of the primary injury. The aim of brain injury management is to limit the consequences of the secondary damage. The original intention of seizure prophylaxis was to limit the incidence of early-onset seizures. However, clinical trials have been equivocal on this point, and there is concern about the adverse effects of antiepileptic drug therapy. This review of the literature raises concerns regarding the arbitrary division of seizures into early onset (7 d) and late onset (8 d and beyond). In many cases it would appear that seizures present within 24 hours of the injury or after 7 days, which would be outside of the scope of current seizure prophylaxis guidance. There also does not appear to be a pathophysiological reason to divide brain injury-related seizures into these timeframes. Therefore, a solution to the conundrum is to reevaluate current practice. Prophylaxis could be offered to those receiving intensive care for the primary brain injury, where the impact of seizure would be detrimental to the management of the brain injury, or other clinical judgments where prophylaxis is prudent. Neurosurgical seizure management can then focus attention on which agent has the best adverse effect profile and the duration of therapy. The evidence seems to support levetiracetam as the most appropriate agent. Although previous reviews have identified an increase cost associated with the use of levetiracetam, current cost comparisons with phenytoin demonstrate a marginal price differential. The aim of this review is to assimilate the applicable literature regarding seizure prophylaxis. The final guidance is a forum upon which further clinical research could evaluate a new seizure prophylaxis paradigm.

Seizures and Choice of Antiepileptic Drugs Following Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Review

Seizures are important complications following a subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). The evidence for the use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in treatment and prevention of those seizures is conflicting. The purpose of this review is to provide an up-to-date evidence summary of the incidence and outcomes of seizures following an SAH as well as the use of different AEDs post-SAH in order to evaluate the need for seizure prophylaxis, the choice of AEDs, and their dosing considerations in SAH patients. A literature search of PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed. A total of 37 studies were reviewed, mostly observational. Definitions of seizures in temporal relation to initial hemorrhage were variable. Similarly, the rates of seizures varied in the literature, ranging from 0 to 31%. Given the reported adverse outcomes associated with AED usage, seizure prophylaxis is not warranted. Levetiracetam appears to be better tolerated than phenytoin in SAH patients, though further research is needed. Higher initial dosing of levetiracetam might be required due to its enhanced clearance in SAH patients. In conclusion, there is a lack of quality evidence to definitively recommend the use of one AED over another. Further prospective research comparing the use of different AEDs in patients with an SAH is needed.

Seizures and Epileptiform Patterns in SAH and Their Relation to Outcomes

In subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), seizures are frequent and occur at different time points, likely reflecting heterogeneous pathophysiology. Young patients, those with more severe SAH (by clot burden or presence of severe mental status changes at onset or focal neurologic deficits at any time), those with associated increased cortical irritation (by infarction or presence of underlying hematoma), and patients undergoing craniotomy are at higher risk. Advanced neurophysiologic monitoring allows for seizure burden quantification, identification of subclinical seizures, and interictal patterns as well as neurovascular complications that may have an independent impact on the outcome in this population. Practice regarding seizure prophylaxis varies widely; its institution is often guided by the risk-benefit ratio of seizures and medication side effects. Newer anticonvulsants seem to be equally effective and may have a more favorable profile. However, questions regarding the association of seizures and vasospasm, the therapeutic dosing, timing, and duration of antiepileptic treatment and the impact of seizures and antiepileptics on the outcome remain unanswered. In this review, we provide a broad overview of the work in this area and offer a diagnostic and therapeutic approach based on our own expert opinion.

Neuroprotection and anti-seizure effects of levetiracetam in a rat model of penetrating ballistic-like brain injury

PURPOSE

We assessed the therapeutic efficacy of FDA-approved anti-epileptic drug Levetiracetam (LEV) to reduce post-traumatic nonconvulsive seizure (NCS) activity and promote neurobehavioral recovery following 10% frontal penetrating ballistic-like brain injury (PBBI) in male Sprague-Dawley rats.

METHODS

Experiment 1 anti-seizure study: 50 mg/kg LEV (25 mg/kg maintenance doses) was given twice daily for 3 days (LEV3D) following PBBI; outcome measures included seizures incidence, frequency, duration, and onset. Experiment 2 neuroprotection studies: 50 mg/kg LEV was given twice daily for either 3 (LEV3D) or 10 days (LEV10D) post-injury; outcome measures include motor (rotarod) and cognitive (water maze) functions.

RESULTS

LEV3D treatment attenuated seizure activity with significant reductions in NCS incidence (54%), frequency, duration, and delayed latency to seizure onset compared to vehicle treatment. LEV3D treatment failed to improve cognitive or motor performance; however extending the dosing regimen through 10 days post-injury afforded significant neuroprotective benefit. Animals treated with the extended LEV10D dosing regimen showed a twofold improvement in rotarod task latency to fall as well as significantly improved spatial learning performance (24%) in the MWM task.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support the dual anti- seizure and neuroprotective role of LEV, but more importantly identify the importance of an extended dosing protocol which was specific to the therapeutic targets studied.

Prophylactic Antiepileptics and Seizure Incidence Following Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The utility of prophylactic antiepileptic drug (AED) administration after spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage remains controversial. AEDs have not clearly been associated with a reduction in seizure incidence and have been associated with both neurological worsening and delayed functional recovery in this setting.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed a prospectively collected database of subarachnoid hemorrhage patients admitted to our institution between 2005 and 2010. Between 2005 and 2007, all patients received prophylactic AEDs upon admission. After 2007, no patients received prophylactic AEDs or had AEDs immediately discontinued if initiated at an outside hospital. A propensity score-matched analysis was then performed to compare the development of clinical and electrographic seizures in these 2 populations.

RESULTS

Three hundred and fifty three patients with spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage were analyzed, 43% of whom were treated with prophylactic AEDs upon admission. Overall, 10% of patients suffered clinical and electrographic seizures, most frequently occurring within 24 hours of ictus (47%). The incidence of seizures did not vary significantly based on the use of prophylactic AEDs (11 versus 8%; P=0.33). Propensity score-matched analyses suggest that patients receiving prophylactic AEDs had a similar likelihood of suffering seizures as those who did not (P=0.49).

CONCLUSIONS

Propensity score-matched analysis suggests that prophylactic AEDs do not significantly reduce the risk of seizure occurrence in patients with spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage.

The safety and efficacy of levetiracetam versus phenytoin for seizure prophylaxis after traumatic brain injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The standard for early traumatic brain injury (TBI) seizure prophylaxis is phenytoin (PHT). Levetiracetam (LEV) has been proposed as an alternative to PHT. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LEV on TBI seizure when compared with PHT.

METHODS

A search was carried out based on the databases from Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane database up to May 2015. The relative risk (RR) and the relevant 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined.

RESULTS

Eight observational studies and one randomized controlled trial involving 2035 cases were included. The results indicated that no significant differences in terms of overall seizure (RR = 0.90; 95% CI = 0.51-1.53; p = 0.68), early seizure (RR = 1.06; 95% CI = 0.37-3.07; p = 0.92) and late seizure (RR = 1.10; 95% CI = 0.43-2.79; p = 0.85) occurrence. However, LEV was associated with a lower adverse drug reaction rate (RR = 0.43; 95% CI = 0.23-0.81; p = 0.01). Moreover, there were no significant differences in terms of mortality, length of ICU or hospital stay between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The meta-analysis suggests that LEV appears to have a similar efficacy to PHT on TBI. A better safety profile of LEV is supported by this analysis.

The New Antiepileptic Drugs: Their Neuropharmacology and Clinical Indications

The administration of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is the first treatment of epilepsy, one of the most common neurological diseases. Therapeutic guidelines include newer AEDs as front-line drugs; monotherapy with new AEDs is delivered in Japan. While about 70% of patients obtain good seizure control by taking one to three AEDs, about 60% experience adverse effects and 33% have to change drugs. Compared to traditional AEDs, the prolonged administration of new AEDs elicits fewer adverse effects and fewer drug interactions and their teratogenicity may be lower. These characteristics increase drug compliance and allow combination therapy for drug-resistant epilepsy, although the antiepileptic effects of the new AEDs are not greater than of traditional AEDs. Comorbidities are not rare in epileptics; many adult patients present with stroke and brain tumors. In stroke patients requiring risk control and in chemotherapy-treated brain tumor patients, their fewer drug interactions render the new AEDs advantageous. Also, new AEDs offer favorable side benefits for concurrent diseases and conditions. Patients with stroke and traumatic brain injury often present with psychiatric/behavioral symptoms and cognitive impairment and some new AEDs alleviate such symptoms. This review presents an outline of the new AEDs used to treat adult patients based on the pharmacological activity of the drugs and discusses possible clinical indications from the perspective of underlying causative diseases and comorbidities.

Outcomes after Early Anticonvulsant Discontinuation in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

Background:

Empiric use of anticonvulsant (AED) for seizure prophylaxis in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) remains controversial and may be associated with worse SAH outcome. We determined the safety and feasibility of early discontinuation of empiric AED in a select cohort of SAH patients.

Methods:

In a cohort of 166 consecutive SAH patients, a subset underwent early AED discontinuation if they were awake and following commands after aneurysm treatment. We examined the effect of AED discontinuation on seizure incidence, mortality and functional outcome at discharge using logistic regression and validated results using 70%-30% data partition.

Results:

Seventy-three subjects underwent AED discontinuation. Patient groups had similar gender, age, Fisher grade, incidence of craniotomy, vasospasm, ischemic infarct, intraventricular and intraparenchymal hemorrhages. Hunt-Hess (HH) grade were lower in AED-discontinuation group. Clinical or electrographic seizure occurred in 1/93 (1%) patients on AED and 0/73 patient in AED-discontinuation group. Crude mortality was 24% in patients on AED and 2.7% off AED. After adjusting for age, HH grade, vasospasm, ischemic infarct, intracerebral, and intraventricular hemorrhage, AED discontinuation remains independently associated with lower mortality and higher odds of discharge to home (p=0.0002). AED use is not associated with angiographic vasospasm on exploratory analysis.

Conclusion:

AED discontinuation in SAH patients who are awake and following commands post aneurysm treatment is safe, feasible, and associated with better outcome at hospital discharge. A larger, prospective study is necessary to determine if empiric AED use in SAH leads to poorer functional status.

Incidence of delayed seizures, delayed cerebral ischemia and poor outcome with the use of levetiracetam versus phenytoin after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage

Current guidelines recommend against the use of phenytoin following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) but consider other anticonvulsants, such as levetiracetam, acceptable. Our objective was to evaluate the risk of poor functional outcomes, delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) and delayed seizures in aSAH patients treated with levetiracetam versus phenytoin. Medical records of patients with aSAH admitted between 2005-2012 receiving anticonvulsant prophylaxis with phenytoin or levetiracetam for >72 hours were reviewed. The primary outcome measure was poor functional outcome, defined as modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score >3 at first recorded follow-up. Secondary outcomes measures included DCI and the incidence of delayed seizures. The association between the use of levetiracetam and phenytoin and the outcomes of interest was studied using logistic regression. Medical records of 564 aSAH patients were reviewed and 259 included in the analysis after application of inclusion/exclusion criteria. Phenytoin was used exclusively in 43 (17%), levetiracetam exclusively in 132 (51%) while 84 (32%) patients were switched from phenytoin to levetiracetam. Six (2%) patients had delayed seizures, 94 (36%) developed DCI and 63 (24%) had mRS score >3 at follow-up. On multivariate analysis, only modified Fisher grade and seizure before anticonvulsant administration were associated with DCI while age, Hunt-Hess grade and presence of intraparenchymal hematoma were associated with mRS score >3. Choice of anticonvulsant was not associated with any of the outcomes of interest. There was no difference in the rate of delayed seizures, DCI or poor functional outcome in patients receiving phenytoin versus levetiracetam after aSAH. The high rate of crossover from phenytoin suggests that levetiracetam may be better tolerated.

Current practice regarding seizure prophylaxis in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage across academic centers

OBJECT

The objective of this study was to determine current practices regarding seizure prophylaxis in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH).

METHODS

An eight question survey was sent to 25 US centers with high volume aSAH cases (>100 annually). Respondents were asked about institutional practices regarding use, duration, and type of seizure prophylaxis.

RESULTS

13 (52%) respondents endorsed the utility of seizure prophylaxis while 10 (40%) did not, and two (8%) were unsure. Among respondents using prophylaxis, levetiracetam was the firstline medication for the majority (94%) while phenytoin was used as a primary agent at one (4%) center and as a secondary agent at four (16%) centers. Duration of levetiracetam prophylaxis ranged from 1 day to 6 weeks following SAH (mean 13.2; median 11). Only a single center employed EEG routinely in all aSAH patients but most supported EEG use when the neurologic examination was unreliable or inexplicably declining. 24 (96%) respondents agreed that a trial randomizing patients to levetiracetam or no antiseizure medication is warranted at this time, and all 25 (100%) believed that such a trial would be appropriate or ethically sound.

CONCLUSIONS

The routine use of seizure prophylaxis following aSAH is controversial. Among a sampling of 25 major academic centers, most administer prophylaxis, while a significant proportion does not. The majority believes a trial randomizing patients to receive seizure prophylaxis is both timely and ethical.

Seizure prophylaxis in neurocritical care: a review of evidence-based support

Seizures are a well-described complication of acute brain injury and neurosurgery. Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are frequently utilized for seizure prophylaxis in neurocritical care patients. In this review, the Neurocritical Care Society Pharmacy Section describes the evidence associated with the use of AEDs for seizure prophylaxis in patients with intracerebral tumors, traumatic brain injury, aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, craniotomy, ischemic stroke, and intracerebral hemorrhage. Clear evidence indicates that the short-term use of AEDs for seizure prophylaxis in patients with traumatic brain injury and aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage may be beneficial; however, evidence to support the use of AEDs in other disease states is less clear.

Levetiracetam use in the critical care setting

Intravenous (IV) levetiracetam (LEV) is currently approved as an alternative or replacement therapy for patients unable to take the oral form of this antiepileptic drug (AED). The oral form has Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indications for adjunctive therapy in the treatment of partial onset epilepsy ages 1 month or more, myoclonic seizures associated with juvenile myoclonic epilepsy starting with the age of 12 and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in people 6 years and older. Since the initial introduction, oral and IV LEV has been evaluated in various studies conducted in the critical care setting for the treatment of status epilepticus, stroke-related seizures, seizures following subarachnoid or intracerebral hemorrhage, post-traumatic seizures, tumor-related seizures, and seizures in critically ill patients. Additionally, studies evaluating rapid infusion of IV LEV and therapeutic monitoring of serum LEV levels in different patient populations have been performed. In this review we present the current state of knowledge on LEV use in the critical care setting focusing on the IV uses and discuss future research needs.

Antiepileptic drugs for the primary and secondary prevention of seizures after subarachnoid haemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Subarachnoid haemorrhage may result in seizures both acutely and in the longer term. The use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in the primary and secondary prevention of seizures after subarachnoid haemorrhage is uncertain, and there is currently no consensus on treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of AEDs for the primary and secondary prevention of seizures after subarachnoid haemorrhage.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 1) in The Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE (1946 to 12th March 2013). We checked the reference lists of articles retrieved from these searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in which patients were assigned to a treatment (one or more AEDs) or placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (RM and JK) independently screened and assessed the methodological quality of the studies. If studies were included, one author extracted the data and the other checked it.

MAIN RESULTS

No relevant studies were found.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence to support or refute the use of antiepileptic drugs for the primary or secondary prevention of seizures related to subarachnoid haemorrhage. Well-designed randomised controlled trials are urgently needed to guide clinical practice.

Controversies in neurosciences critical care

Neurocritical care is an evolving subspecialty with many controversial topics. The focus of this review is (1) transfusion thresholds in patients with acute intracranial bleeding, including packed red blood cell transfusion, platelet transfusion, and reversal of coagulopathy; (2) indications for seizure prophylaxis and choice of antiepileptic agent; and (3) the role of specialized neurocritical care units and specialists in the care of critically ill neurology and neurosurgery patients.

Phenytoin versus Leviteracetam for seizure prophylaxis after brain injury - a meta analysis

BACKGROUND

Current standard therapy for seizure prophylaxis in Neuro-surgical patients involves the use of Phenytoin (PHY). However, a new drug Levetiracetam (LEV) is emerging as an alternate treatment choice. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to compare these two drugs in patients with brain injury.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed in using Pubmed, Embase, and CENTRAL. We included studies that compared the use of LEV vs. PHY for seizure prophylaxis for brain injured patients (Traumatic brain injury, intracranial hemorrhage, intracranial neoplasms, and craniotomy). Data of all eligible studies was extracted on to a standardized abstraction sheet. Data about baseline population characteristics, type of intervention, study design and outcome was extracted. Our primary outcome was seizures.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 2489 unduplicated papers. Of these 2456 papers were excluded by reading the abstracts and titles. Another 25 papers were excluded after reading their complete text. We selected 8 papers which comprised of 2 RCTs and 6 observational studies. The pooled estimate's Odds Ratio 1.12 (95% CI = 0.34, 3.64) demonstrated no superiority of either drug at preventing the occurrence of early seizures. In a subset analysis of studies in which follow up for seizures lasted either 3 or 7 days, the effect estimate remained insignificant with an odds ratio of 0.96 (95% CI = 0.34, 2.76). Similarly, 2 trials reporting seizure incidence at 6 months also had insignificant pooled results while comparing drug efficacy. The pooled odds ratio was 0.96 (95% CI = 0.24, 3.79).

CONCLUSIONS

Levetiracetam and Phenytoin demonstrate equal efficacy in seizure prevention after brain injury. However, very few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the subject were found. Further evidence through a high quality RCT is highly recommended.