Efficacy and safety of prophylactic levetiracetam in supratentorial brain tumour surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Anaesthetic considerations and challenges during awake craniotomy

ABSTRACT

This article summarises the key anaesthetic considerations and challenges surrounding the perioperative management of a patient undergoing awake craniotomy. The main goals include patient comfort, facilitation of patient cooperation during the critical awake phase and maintenance of optimal operating conditions. These are achieved through appropriate patient selection and preparation, familiarity with the complexity of each surgical phase and potential complications that may arise, as well as maintenance of close communication among all team members. Challenges such as loss of patient cooperation, loss of airway, intraoperative nausea and vomiting, seizures, cerebral oedema, hypertension, blood loss and use of intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging are discussed. The importance of teamwork, competence, vigilance and clear management strategies for potential complications to maximise patient outcomes is also highlighted.

Patterns of Antiseizure Medication Use Following Meningioma Resection: A Single-Institution Experience

OBJECTIVE

To investigate antiseizure medication (ASM) practice behavior for patients who present with seizures before meningioma resection and to review postoperative ASM management.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed of 112 consecutive patients with meningiomas who underwent resection at a single institution between October 2016 and January 2020. Data were collected through detailed chart review.

RESULTS

Of 112 patients, 35 (31%) had a preoperative seizure, and 43 (38%) were prescribed a preoperative ASM. At discharge, 96 patients (86%) were prescribed an ASM, most often 1000 mg daily of levetiracetam (64%, 61/96) and less often higher doses of levetiracetam or other ASMs. By the 6-month postoperative visit, 55 patients (49%) were taking at least 1 ASM, most commonly levetiracetam monotherapy (65%) at 500 mg twice daily (47%). This number further decreased to 45 (40%) patients by 1-year follow-up and 36 (32%) patients by last-known follow-up. By last follow-up (median 27.3 months; range 5.4-57.4 months), 24 patients (21%) had experienced a postoperative seizure, and 36 patients (32%) were never able to discontinue ASMs. Of patients remaining on levetiracetam monotherapy, only 36% remained on levetiracetam 500 mg twice daily.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately two thirds (68%) of patients who underwent surgical resection of meningioma were eventually able to completely discontinue their postoperative ASM regimen. However, nearly one third (32%) of patients required long-term ASM management. Levetiracetam monotherapy was the most common ASM prescribed during the postoperative period, and the proportion of patients requiring either higher doses of levetiracetam or alternative ASMs increased over time.

Perioperative perampanel administration for early seizure prophylaxis in brain tumor patients

Background

The efficacy of perioperative prophylactic antiepileptic drug therapy in "seizure-naïve" patients with brain tumor, including glioblastoma (GBM), remains controversial. This study investigated whether perampanel (PER) is effective and safe for preventing perioperative onset of epileptic seizures, so-called early seizure, in patients with brain tumors.

Methods

Forty-five patients underwent tumor resection through craniotomy for a primary supratentorial brain tumor at Ehime University Hospital between April 2021 and July 2022. PER was administered from the 1st to the 6th day after surgery for seizure prophylaxis. Occurrence of early seizure, hematological toxicities, and various side effects were recorded on postoperative days 7 and 14. In addition, the clinical course of these patients was compared with 42 brain tumor patients under the same treatment protocol who received levetiracetam (LEV) for seizure prophylaxis between April 2017 and October 2018.

Results

In 45 patients with brain tumor, including GBM, who received PER administration, no early seizures were identified within 7 days postoperatively. No adverse drug reactions such as hematological toxicity, liver or kidney dysfunction, or exanthematous drug eruption were observed in any cases. As side effects, somnolence was reported in 14 patients (31.1%), vertigo in 3 patients (6.7%), and headache in 3 patients (6.7%). Although somnolence and vertigo were difficult to assess in the case of intraparenchymal tumors, particularly GBM, these side effects were not identified in patients with extraparenchymal tumors such as meningiomas, epidermoid cysts, and pituitary adenomas. In addition, no significant differences were identified compared to patients who received LEV.

Conclusion

The efficacy and safety of PER in preventing early seizures among patients with brain tumors were retrospectively evaluated. Perioperative administration of PER to patients with brain tumors may reduce the risk of early seizures without incurring serious side effects, showing no significant differences compared to patients who received LEV.

Predictive factors for post operative seizures following meningioma resection in patients without preoperative seizures: a multicenter retrospective analysis

PURPOSE

Meningiomas are the most common primary brain tumor and represent 35% of all intracranial neoplasms. However, in the early post-operative period approximate 3-5% of patients experience an acute symptomatic seizure. Establishing risk factors for postoperative seizures will identify those patients without preoperative seizures at greatest risk of postoperative seizures and may guide antiseizure medications (ASMs) management.

METHODS

Adult seizure naïve patients who underwent primary resection of a World Health Organization (WHO) Grade 1-3 meningioma at the three Mayo Clinic Campuses between 2012-2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Multivariate regression analyses were used to identify radiological, surgical, and management features with the development of new-onset seizures in patients undergoing meningioma resection.

RESULTS

Of 113 seizure naïve patients undergoing meningioma resection 11 (9.7%) experienced a new-onset post-operative seizure. Tumor volume ≥ 25 cm³ (Odds Ratio (OR) 5.223, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.546 - 17.650, p = 0.008) and cerebral convexity meningiomas (OR 4.742, 95% CI 1.255 - 14.336, p = 0.016) were most associated with new onset postoperative seizures in multivariate analysis. ASMs and corticosteroid therapies did not display a significant difference among those with and without a new onset postoperative seizure.

CONCLUSION

In the current study, a larger tumor volume (≥ 25 cm³) and/or convexity meningiomas predicted the development of new onset post-operative seizures. Those who present with these factors should be counseled for their increased risk of new onset post-operative seizures and may benefit from prophylactic ASMs therapy.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Levetiracetam Versus Phenytoin for Post-craniotomy Seizure Prophylaxis

Background: Superiority of levetiracetam over phenytoin for postcraniotomy seizure prophylaxis in patients with a supratentorial brain tumor is controversial. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of levetiracetam versus phenytoin for postcraniotomy seizure prophylaxis in supratentorial brain tumor. Methods: In a randomized controlled trial study, 80 patients with a supratentorial brain tumor who underwent craniotomy were allocated to levetiracetam or phenytoin group, 40 patients each. Seizure prophylaxis was started 5 days before the surgery and continued until 90 days after surgery. Phenytoin group received 100 mg oral phenytoin 3 times a day. The levetiracetam group received 500 mg oral levetiracetam 2 times a day. The primary outcome was the incidence of postcraniotomy seizures. The secondary outcome measure was the safety profile of the drugs. Results: All patients of the phenytoin group and 39 patients of levetiracetam completed the study. Two seizures developed in the study population, 1 in the phenytoin group (2.5%) and 1 in the levetiracetam group (2.6%) (P = 0.710). Renal or hepatic dysfunction was not observed in any patients. Wound hematoma was seen in 5 patients (12.5%) of the phenytoin and 6 patients (15.4%) of the levetiracetam group (P = 0.481). Skin rash developed in 3 patients (7.5%) of the phenytoin group and no patient of the levetiracetam group (P = 0.132). Thrombocytopenia was detected in 1 patient of the phenytoin group (2.5%) and no patient of the levetiracetam group (P = 0.511). None of the adverse events led to drug withdrawal. Conclusion: These results reveal no superiority of levetiracetam over phenytoin for postcraniotomy seizure prophylaxis in supratentorial brain tumor.

Duration of Prophylactic Levetiracetam After Surgery for Brain Tumor: A Prospective Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Levetiracetam is commonly used as a prophylactic antiseizure medication in patients undergoing surgical resection of brain tumors.

OBJECTIVE

To quantitate side effects experienced in patients treated with 1 week vs 6 weeks of prophylactic levetiracetam using validated measures for neurotoxicity and depression.

METHODS

Patients undergoing surgical resection of a supratentorial tumor with no seizure history were randomized within 48 hours of surgery to receive prophylactic levetiracetam for the duration of either 1 or 6 weeks. Patients were given oral levetiracetam extended release 1000 mg during the first part of this study. Owing to drug backorder, patients enrolled later in this study received levetiracetam 500 mg BID. The primary outcome was the change in the neurotoxicity score 6 weeks after drug initiation. The secondary outcome was seizure incidence.

RESULTS

A total of 81 patients were enrolled and randomized to 1 week (40 patients) or 6 weeks (41 patients) of prophylactic levetiracetam treatment. The neurotoxicity score slightly improved in the overall cohort between baseline and reassessment. There was no significant difference between groups in neurotoxicity or depression scores. Seizure incidence was low in the entire cohort of patients with 1 patient in each arm experiencing a seizure during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

The use of prophylactic levetiracetam did not result in significant neurotoxicity or depression when given for either 1 week or 6 weeks. The incidence of seizure after craniotomy for tumor resection is low regardless of duration of therapy.

Epilepsy treatment in neuro-oncology: A rationale for drug choice in common clinical scenarios

Epilepsy represents a challenge in the management of patients with brain tumors. Epileptic seizures are one of the most frequent comorbidities in neuro-oncology and may be the debut symptom of a brain tumor or a complication during its evolution. Epileptogenic mechanisms of brain tumors are not yet fully elucidated, although new factors related to the underlying pathophysiological process with possible treatment implications have been described. In recent years, the development of new anti-seizure medications (ASM), with better pharmacokinetic profiles and fewer side effects, has become a paradigm shift in many clinical scenarios in neuro-oncology, being able, for instance, to adapt epilepsy treatment to specific features of each patient. This is crucial in several situations, such as patients with cognitive/psychiatric comorbidity, pregnancy, or advanced age, among others. In this narrative review, we provide a rationale for decision-making in ASM choice for neuro-oncologic patients, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each drug. In addition, according to current literature evidence, we try to answer some of the most frequent questions that arise in daily clinical practice in patients with epilepsy related to brain tumors, such as, which patients are the best candidates for ASM and when to start it, what is the best treatment option for each patient, and what are the major pitfalls to be aware of during follow-up.

Atypical, Levetiracetam-induced Hypersensitivity Syndrome Complicated by Fulminant Liver Failure in a Patient Undergoing Hemodialysis

A 59-year-old man undergoing hemodialysis was administered levetiracetam, after which he developed a systemic rash, high fever, severe liver dysfunction, and leukocytopenia with reactivation of human herpes virus 6. Atypical drug-induced hypersensitivity (DIHS) was diagnosed, and prednisolone was administered at 60 mg/day. However, liver failure rapidly progressed, and the patient died 12 days following treatment. Despite the rarity of DIHS with concomitant fulminant liver failure from levetiracetam and sufficient clearance thereof by hemodialysis, our case suggests that this syndrome may still ensue, resulting in mortality, even in hemodialysis patients. Although no treatment has yet been established, strict monitoring and aggressive treatment may be required.

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.

Chinese guideline on the application of anti-seizure medications in the perioperative period of supratentorial craniocerebral surgery

Seizures are a common symptom of craniocerebral diseases, and epilepsy is one of the comorbidities of craniocerebral diseases. However, how to rationally use anti-seizure medications (ASMs) in the perioperative period of craniocerebral surgery to control or avoid seizures and reduce their associated harm is a problem. The China Association Against Epilepsy (CAAE) united with the Trauma Group of the Chinese Neurosurgery Society, Glioma Professional Committee of the Chinese Anti-Cancer Association, Neuro-Oncology Branch of the Chinese Neuroscience Society, and Neurotraumatic Group of Chinese Trauma Society, and selected experts for consultancy regarding outcomes from evidence-based medicine in domestic and foreign literature. These experts referred to the existing research evidence, drug characteristics, Chinese FDA-approved indications, and expert experience, and finished the current guideline on the application of ASMs during the perioperative period of craniocerebral surgery, aiming to guide relevant clinical practice. This guideline consists of six sections: application scope of guideline, concepts of craniocerebral surgery-related seizures and epilepsy, postoperative application of ASMs in patients without seizures before surgery, application of ASMs in patients with seizures associated with lesions before surgery, emergency treatment of postoperative seizures, and 16 recommendations.

The use of prophylactic antiepileptic medication and driving restrictions for craniotomies among Australian and New Zealand neurosurgeons

Prophylactic antiepileptic drug (pAED) use for craniotomy surgery is currently not supported in literature [1-5] except possibly in traumatic brain injury (TBI) [6]. Post craniotomy driving restrictions using the Austroad guidelines are based upon literature on TBI and not specifically craniotomy [16-18]. This study was to review Australian and New Zealand neurosurgeons on their use of pAED and advice on driving restrictions post craniotomy surgery. A voluntary and anonymous survey link was distributed to the members of the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia (NSA) through the NSA newsletter. The survey was available on the SurveyMonkey platform in the year 2021 August to December. Questions regarding the use of pAED and duration of driving restrictions were presented to survey participants. Sixty-one (26 %) out of 231 neurosurgeons responded to the survey. Thirty-six percent of respondents stated that they prescribed pAEDs regularly whilst thirty-two percent of respondents did not routinely prescribe pAEDs for craniotomy surgery. Driving restrictions varied but the most common driving restriction post craniotomy surgery was 6 months. There were divided opinions among NSA members in regards to pAED use and driving restrictions. The rationale for pAED use and prolonged driving restrictions for craniotomy surgery needs to be re-evaluated with current literature. The significant effect this may have on the well-being and quality life of patients need to be considered before prescribing pAEDs or long driving restrictions.

Perioperative levetiracetam for seizure prophylaxis in seizure-naive brain tumor patients with focus on neurocognitive functioning

Introduction

In seizure-naive brain tumor patients, the efficacy of perioperative prophylactic antiepileptic drug treatment remains controversial. In case of administration, the common preferred drug is levetiracetam (LEV) because of its favorable pharmacological profile. Research to date has not sufficiently determined how LEV affects cognition in the short term, as is the case in the perioperative period. The objective of this prospective study was to examine the neurocognitive functioning of seizure-naive brain tumor patients after receiving LEV perioperatively.

Methods

Fortythree patients with supratentorial brain tumor scheduled for surgery received LEV three days before until six days after surgery as seizure prophylaxis. Cognitive functioning (NeuroCogFX), LEV plasma-levels, hematotoxicity, side-effects, as well as health-related quality of life (HRQoL, Qolie31), were recorded preoperatively before (Baseline) and after onset of LEV (Pre-Op), 4–6 days postoperatively (Post-Op) and 21 days postoperatively (Follow-Up).

Results

No significant changes in cognitive functioning and HRQoL were seen after onset of preoperative LEV. There was a significant improvement of NeuroCogFX total-score at Follow-Up (p = 0.004) compared to Baseline. The overall-score Qolie31 showed simultaneous improvement patterns as cognitive functioning (p < 0.001). The most frequent side effect related to study drug was somnolence (in 28.6% of patients).

Conclusions

A significant improvement of cognitive functioning, as well as an improvement in HRQoL, were detected postoperatively. This is presumably due to the debulking effect of the surgery. Nevertheless, LEV has no detrimental effect on cognitive functioning in the perioperative phase in seizure-naive brain tumor patients.

Trial registration

This study was registered prospectively (Date: 25/11/2015; EudraCT: 2015–003,916-19).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12883-022-02762-7.

Anti-Epileptic Drugs in Geriatric Neurosurgery: A Review of 669 Neurosurgical Cases

Background and Purpose

Patients over the age of 75 are more likely to develop epilepsy than children under the age of 10. Patients of all ages are prescribed anti-epileptic drugs; however, those over the age of 65 are the most typically prescribed group.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of geriatric cases admitted to the Neurosurgery Department in Khoula Hospital from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2019. A medical records of 669 patients were identified. Patients’ demographics, risk factors, usage of anti-epileptic drug (AED), type of tumor, tumor location, neuro-vital signs diagnosis, Glasgow coma scale on arrival, treatment types, and length of stay (LOS) were recorded.

Results

The prevalence of AEDs use was 19%. Patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) were found to have a higher rate of using AEDs (32.1%) followed by patients with oncological and vascular pathologies, respectively (30.1% and 21.6%). There was a significant relationship between the utilization of AEDs among different neurological diseases investigated (p<0.05). Patients who received surgical interventions were using AEDs much more than patients with conservative management (p=0.001). There was a significant difference in the LOS and the usage of AEDs. Added to that, the results signify a relationship between the intensive care unit (ICU) admission and the utilization of AEDs in which the majority of the patients who were not on AEDs were not admitted to the ICU (p<0.05). Phenytoin was the most commonly used AED among different neurosurgical pathologies in the present study (n=110).

Conclusions

AEDs are used as prophylaxis to prevent seizures before most neurosurgical procedures and were commonly prescribed in TBI patients. Phenytoin was found to be the commonest AEDs utilized among the different neurosurgical categories followed by levetiracetam.

Levetiracetam Versus Levetiracetam Plus Sodium Channel Blockers for Postoperative Epileptic Seizure Prevention in Brain Tumor Patients

Background

Brain tumor patients tend to develop postoperative epileptic seizures, which can lead to an unfavorable outcome. Although the incidence of postoperative epileptic seizures and adverse events are improved with the advent of levetiracetam (LEV), postoperative epilepsy occurs at a frequency of 4.6% or higher. In brain tumor patients, the addition of sodium channel blockers (SCBs) to LEV significantly reduces seizures, though confirmed in a non-postoperative study. Thus, the combination of SCBs with LEV might be promising.

Objective

In this prospective randomized controlled trial we investigated the safety, evaluated by adverse events during one and two weeks after surgery, and the efficacy, evaluated by the incidence of early epilepsy, including non-convulsive status epilepticus (NCSE), of using LEV alone or SCBs added to LEV in patients who underwent craniotomy or biopsy for brain tumors or brain mass lesions.

Methods

Patients with brain tumors or brain mass lesions undergoing surgical interventions, excluding endoscopic endonasal surgery (EES), with a diagnosis of epilepsy were eligible for this study. Patients are randomized into either Group A or B (B1 or B2) after the informed consents are taken; LEV alone in Group A patients, while LEV and SCBs in Group B patients (GroupB1, intravenous fosphenytoin plus oral lacosamide (LCM) and GroupB2, intravenous LCM plus oral LCM) were administered postoperatively. Fifty-three patients were enrolled during the first two and a half years of the study and four of them were excluded, resulting in the accumulation of 49 patients’ data.

Results

Postoperative epileptic seizures occurred only in three out of 49 patients during the first week (6.1%) and in seven patients within two weeks after surgery (14.3%, including the three patients during the first week). In Group A, epileptic seizures occurred in two out of 26 patients during the first week (7.7%) and in five patients within two weeks (19.2%) after surgery. In Group B, epileptic seizures occurred in one out of 23 patients during the first week (4.3%) and in two patients during the first two weeks (8.7%). Low complication grade of epileptic seizures was observed in Group B rather than in Group A, however, without significant difference (p=0.256). There was no difference in the frequency of adverse effects in each group.

Conclusion

Although not statistically significant, the incidence of epileptic seizures within one week after surgery was lesser in LEV+SCBs groups than in LEV alone. No hepatic damage or renal function worsening occurred with the addition of LCM, suggesting the safety of LEV+SCBs therapy.

Levetiracetam Prophylaxis Therapy for Brain Tumor-Related Epilepsy (BTRE) Is Associated With a Higher Psychiatric Burden

Purpose: Brain tumor-related epilepsy (BTRE) is a condition characterized by the development of seizures in the context of an undergoing oncological background. Levetiracetam (LEV) is a third-generation anti-seizure medication (ASM) widely used in BTRE prophylaxis. The study evaluated LEV neuropsychiatric side effects (SEs) in BTRE prophylaxis.

Method: Twenty-eight patients with brain tumors were retrospectively selected and divided into two groups. In one group, we evaluated patients with a BTRE diagnosis using LEV (BTRE-group). The other group included patients with brain tumors who never had epilepsy and used a prophylactic ASM regimen with LEV (PROPHYLAXIS-group). Neuropsychiatric SEs of LEV were monitored using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q) at the baseline visit and the 6- and 12-month follow-up.

Results: Eighteen patients of the BTRE-group and 10 patients of the PROPHYLAXIS-group were included. Compared to the BTRE-group, the PROPHYLAXIS-group showed a higher severity of neuropsychiatric symptoms. According to Linear Mixed Models (LMM), a multiplicative effect was observed for the interaction between group treatment and time. For the caregiver distress score (CDS), only a time-effect was observed.

Conclusion: Prophylactic ASM with LEV is associated with an increased frequency of neuropsychiatric SE. Accurate epileptological evaluations in patients with brain tumors are mandatory to select who would benefit most from ASM.

Modulation of nociception and pain-evoked neurobehavioral responses by levetiracetam in a craniotomy pain model

Traditional and novel analgesic modalities have been extensively tested for post-craniotomy pain management, yet the role of newer antiepileptic drugs in this area remains obscure. This study investigates the impact of levetiracetam (LEV) on pain modulation and neurobehavioral performance in a craniotomy model. Fifty-six Wistar rats were randomly assigned into seven groups: no intervention (CTRL), administration of placebo or LEV with no further intervention (PBO and LEV, respectively), and sham-operation or craniotomy in placebo (PBO-SHAM and PBO-CR, respectively) or LEV-treated rats (LEV-SHAM and LEV-CR, respectively). Pain was assessed by the rat grimace scale before, and at 8 and 24 h after craniotomy, following intraperitoneal injections of LEV (100 mg/kg twice daily) or normal saline two consecutive days before and on the craniotomy day. Elevated plus-maze and olfactory social memory tests were performed at 24- and 48 h post-craniotomy, respectively. Upon testing conclusion blood samples were collected for cytokines estimation. Levetiracetam administration enhanced antinociception in sham and craniotomy groups. In the elevated plus-maze test, LEV-CR rats spent more time in investigating open arms and performed more open arm entries than PBO-SHAM and PBO-CR animals. The olfactory test revealed no between-groups difference in acquisition time during first contact with a juvenile rat, while LEV-CR rats spent less time to recognize the same juvenile rat compared to PBO-SHAM and PBO-CR groups. Furthermore, LEV-treatment attenuated cortisol, interleukin-6 and TNF-a release, in sham and craniotomy animals. In conclusion, preemptive use of LEV decreases nociception, improves pain-evoked behavior and attenuates stress response in rats subjected to craniotomy.

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.

Operation Brain Trauma Therapy: An Exploratory Study of Levetiracetam Treatment Following Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in the Micro Pig

Operation brain trauma therapy (OBTT) is a drug- and biomarker-screening consortium intended to improve the quality of preclinical studies and provide a rigorous framework to increase the translational potential of experimental traumatic brain injury (TBI) treatments. Levetiracetam (LEV) is an antiepileptic agent that was the fifth drug tested by OBTT in three independent rodent models of moderate to severe TBI. To date, LEV has been the most promising drug tested by OBTT and was therefore advanced to testing in the pig. Adult male micro pigs were subjected to a mild central fluid percussion brain injury followed by a post-injury intravenous infusion of either 170 mg/kg LEV or vehicle. Systemic physiology was assessed throughout the post-injury period. Serial serum samples were obtained pre-injury as well as at 1 min, 30 min, 1 h, 3 h, and 6 h post-injury for a detailed analysis of the astroglial biomarker glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1. Tissue was collected 6 h following injury for histological assessment of diffuse axonal injury using antibodies against the amyloid precursor protein (APP). The animals showed significant increases in circulating GFAP levels from baseline to 6 h post-injury; however, LEV treatment was associated with greater GFAP increases compared to the vehicle. There were no differences in the numbers of APP+ axonal swellings within the pig thalamus with LEV treatment; however, significant alterations in the morphological properties of the APP+ axonal swellings, including reduced swelling area and increased swelling roundness, were observed. Additionally, expression of the neurite outgrowth marker, growth-associated protein 43, was reduced in axonal swellings following LEV treatment, suggesting potential effects on axonal outgrowth that warrant further investigation.

Antiepileptic Drugs in the Management of Cerebral Metastases

Seizures represent a common and debilitating complication of central nervous system metastases. The use of prophylactic antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in the preoperative period remains controversial, but the preponderance of evidence suggests that it is not helpful in preventing seizure and instead poses a significant risk of adverse events. Studies of postoperative seizure prophylaxis have not shown substantial benefit, but this practice remains widespread. Careful analysis of the risk of seizure based on patient-specific factors, such as tumor location and primary tumor histology, should guide the physician's decision on the initiation and cessation of prophylactic AED therapy.

Early postoperative seizures (EPS) in patients undergoing brain tumour surgery

Early postoperative seizures (EPS) are a common complication of brain tumour surgery. This paper investigates risk factors, management and clinical relevance of EPS. We retrospectively analysed the occurrence of EPS, clinical and laboratory parameters, imaging and histopathological findings in a cohort of 679 consecutive patients who underwent craniotomies for intracranial tumours between 2015 and 2017. EPS were observed in 34/679 cases (5.1%), with 14 suffering at least one generalized seizure. Patients with EPS had a worse postoperative Karnofsky performance index (KPI; with EPS, KPI < 70 vs. 70-100: 11/108, 10.2% vs. 23/571, 4.0%; p = 0.007). Preoperative seizure history was a predictor for EPS (none vs. 1 vs. ≥ 2 seizures: p = 0.037). Meningioma patients had the highest EPS incidence (10.1%, p < 0.001). Cranial imaging identified a plausible cause in most cases (78.8%). In 20.6%, EPS were associated with a persisting new neurological deficit that could not otherwise be explained. 34.6% of the EPS patients had recurrent seizures within one year. EPS require an emergency work-up. Multiple EPS and recurrent seizures are frequent, which indicates that EPS may also reflect a more chronic condition i.e. epilepsy. EPS are often associated with persisting neurological worsening.

Anesthetic considerations for awake craniotomy

Awake craniotomy is a gold standard of care for resection of brain tumors located within or close to the eloquent areas. Both asleep-awake-asleep technique and monitored anesthesia care have been used effectively for awake craniotomy and the choice of optimal anesthetic approach is primarily based on the preferences of the anesthesiologist and surgical team. Propofol, remifentanil, dexmedetomidine, and scalp nerve block provide the reliable conditions for intraoperative brain mapping. Appropriate patient selection, adequate perioperative psychological support, and proper anesthetic management for individual patients in each stage of surgery are crucial for procedural safety, success, and patient satisfaction.

Incidence and Risk Factors for Intraoperative Seizures During Elective Craniotomy

BACKGROUND

Perioperative seizures may affect 1% to 50% of patients undergoing craniotomy and adversely impact outcomes. However, data on intraoperative seizures are limited. This retrospective case-control study investigated the incidence and risk factors for intraoperative seizures during elective supratentorial craniotomy involving evoked potential monitoring.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients aged 18 years or above undergoing elective supratentorial craniotomy with evoked potential monitoring who experienced intraoperative seizures at our institution between December 2008 and March 2014 were compared with a control group generated using a random number generator. Six controls were used for each case from among the patients who underwent elective supratentorial craniotomy during the same calendar year. Multivariate analysis was conducted using logistic regression to identify the risk factors for intraoperative seizures.

RESULTS

Among the 1916 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 45 (2.3%) had intraoperative seizures. The majority of seizures occurred during burr-hole placement or craniotomy, before lesion manipulation. Timing of seizures relative to motor evoked potential runs and stimulus intensity was variable. Significant risk factors for intraoperative seizures were seizure history (odds ratio [OR], 2.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-4.46; P=0.03), diagnosis of brain tumor (OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.16-4.19; P=0.02), and temporal craniotomy (OR, 5.18; 95% CI, 2.03-13.25; P=0.001). Intraoperative prophylactic use of phenytoin/fosphenytoin and levetiracetam was protective against seizure (phenytoin/fosphenytoin: OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.04-0.35; P<0.001 and levetiracetam: OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.17-0.94; P=0.04). Phenytoin/fosphenytoin was more protective than levetiracetam (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10-0.99; P=0.048).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall incidence of intraoperative seizures was 2.3%. Independent risk factors for intraoperative seizures were seizure history, diagnosis of intracranial tumor, and temporal craniotomy. Intraoperative prophylactic anticonvulsant use was protective.

Phenytoin versus levetiracetam as prophylaxis for postcraniotomy seizure in patients with no history of seizures: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVEDe novo seizure following craniotomy (DSC) for nontraumatic pathology may adversely affect medical and neurological outcomes in patients with no history of seizures who have undergone craniotomies. Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are commonly used prophylactically in patients undergoing craniotomy; however, evidence supporting this practice is limited and mixed. The authors aimed to collate the available evidence on the efficacy and tolerability of levetiracetam monotherapy and compare it with that of the classic AED, phenytoin, for DSC.METHODSPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies that compared levetiracetam with phenytoin for DSC prevention. Inclusion criteria were adult patients with no history of epilepsy who underwent craniotomy with prophylactic usage of phenytoin, a comparator group with levetiracetam treatment as the main treatment difference between the two groups, and availability of data on the numbers of patients and seizures for each group. Patients with brain injury and previous seizure history were excluded. DSC occurrence and adverse drug reaction (ADR) were evaluated. Seizure occurrence was calculated using the Peto odds ratio (POR), which is the relative effect estimation method of choice for binary data with rare events.RESULTSData from 7 studies involving 803 patients were included. The DSC occurrence rate was 1.26% (4/318) in the levetiracetam cohort and 6.60% (32/485) in the phenytoin cohort. Meta-analysis showed that levetiracetam is significantly superior to phenytoin for DSC prevention (POR 0.233, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.117-0.462, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that levetiracetam is superior to phenytoin for DSC due to all brain diseases (POR 0.129, 95% CI 0.039-0.423, p = 0.001) and tumor (POR 0.282, 95% CI 0.117-0.678, p = 0.005). ADRs in the levetiracetam group were cognitive disturbance, thrombophlebitis, irritability, lethargy, tiredness, and asthenia, whereas rash, anaphylaxis, arrhythmia, and hyponatremia were more common in the phenytoin group. The overall occurrence of ADR in the phenytoin (34/466) and levetiracetam (26/432) groups (p = 0.44) demonstrated no statistically significant difference in ADR occurrence. However, the discontinuation rate of AEDs due to ADR was 53/297 in the phenytoin group and 6/196 in the levetiracetam group (POR 0.266, 95% CI 0.137-0.518, p < 0.001).CONCLUSIONSLevetiracetam is superior to phenytoin for DSC prevention for nontraumatic pathology and has fewer serious ADRs that lead to discontinuation. Further high-quality studies that compare levetiracetam with placebo are necessary to provide evidence for establishing AED guidelines.

Prophylactic antiepileptic treatment with levetiracetam for patients undergoing supratentorial brain tumor surgery: a two-center matched cohort study

Guidelines on the administration of prophylactic antiepileptic drugs (AED), and specifically levetiracetam, for brain tumor surgery are still lacking. In this two-center matched cohort study, we aim to compare the proportion of postoperative seizures during follow-up after supratentorial tumor surgery in patients receiving no seizure prophylaxis, and those treated with levetiracetam perioperatively. Three hundred sixteen consecutive patients undergoing supratentorial tumor surgery, without history of seizures were included: 207 patients did not receive AED (no AED group), and 109 patients received levetiracetam perioperatively (levetiracetam group). The primary outcome measure was the rate of postoperative seizures. Additionally, uni- and multivariate analyses assessing possible risk factors for postoperative seizures were performed. No statistically significant difference for the occurrence of postoperative seizures was found between the two groups (10.1%, n = 21 in the no AED group vs. 9.2%, n = 10, in the levetiracetam group; p = 0.69, OR 0.9 [0.4-2.0), NNT 103 [12.9-17.1]). After propensity score matching, the primary outcome was observed in 13 patients (12.4%) from the no AED group and in 9 patients (8.6%) from the levetiracetam group (p = 0.50, OR 0.7 [0.3-1.6], NNT 26.3 [8.3-22.4]). Among all analyzed possible risk factors for postoperative seizures, only postoperative infarction showed a statistically significant association with higher seizure rates in multivariate analysis (OR 8.2 [1.1-60.6], p = 0.04). Prophylactic treatment with levetiracetam after brain tumor surgery showed no statistically significant effect in preventing postoperative seizures. However, in case a postoperative infarction occurs, its administration might be indicated.

Antiepileptic drugs as prophylaxis for de novo brain tumour-related epilepsy after craniotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of harm and benefits

OBJECTIVES

To investigate potential harm and benefits of antiepileptic drugs (AED) given prophylactically to prevent de novo brain tumour-related epilepsy after craniotomy.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials (RCT) and retrospective studies published before 27 November 2018 were included. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were applied. Eligible patients were diagnosed with a brain tumour, were seizure naïve and underwent craniotomy. The random effects model was used for quantitative synthesis. The analysis was adjusted for the confounding effect of including patients with a history of seizure prior to study inclusion.

RESULTS

A total of 454 patients received prophylactic AED whereas 333 were allocated to placebo or no treatment. Two RCTs and four retrospective studies were identified. The OR was 1.09 (95% CI 0.7 to 1.8, p=0.7, I²=5.6%, χ² p=0.5), indicating study consistency and no significant differences. An additional two RCTs and one retrospective study combined craniotomy and diagnostic biopsy, and were subgroup analysed-which supported no difference in odds for epilepsy.

CONCLUSIONS

A prophylactic effect of AED could not be demonstrated (nor rejected statistically). Levetiracetam was associated with less adverse effects than phenytoin. The potential harm of AED was not balanced by the potential prophylactic benefit. This study suggests that prophylactic AED should not be administered to prevent brain tumour-related epilepsy after craniotomy.

Uncertain Effectiveness of Prophylactic Anticonvulsive Medication in Predicting Cognitive Outcome of Neurosurgical Patients

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the influence of prophylactic anticonvulsive medication, above all levetiracetam monotherapy, in predicting the cognitive outcome of neurosurgical patients with post-traumatic brain injury, intracerebral hemorrhage, and encephalic tumors.

METHODS

We examined data concerning 232 of 327 adult patients admitted to the Neurorehabilitation Department of the San Raffaele Hospital (Milan, Italy) after discharge from the Neurosurgery Department. Cognitive status was evaluated by means of the "Mini-Mental State" examination and the Functional Independence Measure at baseline and at the end of a rehabilitation care with an average duration of about four weeks.

RESULTS

The vast majority of the patients were treated with levetiracetam. Our data showed a negative role of antiepileptic drugs on cognitive recovery in a cohort of neurosurgical patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowing thoroughly the effects of antiepileptic drugs in rehabilitation outcome is of fundamental importance. This study represents the only large series analyzing these aspects in the rehabilitation of neurosurgical patients. Antiepileptic drugs should be managed to ensure patients the best possible cognitive outcome. Further evidence from good-quality trials is required to assess the clinical effectiveness of prophylactic anticonvulsive medication in predicting the cognitive outcome of neurosurgical patients who are treated with rehabilitation.

Anesthesia for awake craniotomy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The current review reports on current trends in the anesthetic management of awake craniotomy, including preoperative preparation, sedation schemes, pain management, and prevention of intraoperative complications.

RECENT FINDINGS

Both approaches for anesthesia for awake craniotomy, asleep-awake-asleep and monitored anesthesia care (MAC), have shown equal efficacy for performing intraoperative brain mapping. Choice of the appropriate scheme is currently based mainly on the preferences of the particular anesthesiologist. Dexmedetomidine has demonstrated high efficacy and safety in MAC for awake craniotomy and has become a rational alternative to propofol. Despite the high efficacy of scalp block and opioids, pain remains a common compliant in awake craniotomy. Appropriate surgical tactics can reduce pain and even prevent postoperative neurological complications. Although the efficacy of prophylaxis of intraoperative seizures with anticonvulsants remains doubtful, levetiracetam can be superior to other drugs for this purpose.

SUMMARY

Following a great deal of progress in anesthetic management, awake craniotomy, which had been a relatively rare approach, is now a commonly performed procedure for neurosurgical intervention. Modern anesthesia techniques can provide for successful brain mapping in almost any patient. Management of awake craniotomy in high-risk patients is a central task for future research.

Prophylaxis of postoperative complications after craniotomy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review reports an update of the evidence on practices applied for the prevention and management of the most common complications after craniotomy surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Latest guidelines support the combined thromboprophylaxis with the use of both mechanical and chemical modalities, preferably applied within 24 h after craniotomy. Nevertheless, a heightened risk of minor hemorrhagic events remains an issue of concern. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and pain constitute the complications most commonly encountered during the first 24 h postcraniotomy. Recently, neurokinin type-1 receptor antagonists have been tested as adjuncts for PONV prophylaxis with encouraging results, whereas dexmedetomidine and gabapentinoids emerge as promising alternatives for postcraniotomy pain management. The available data for seizure prophylaxis following craniotomy lacks scientific quality; thus, this remains still a debatable issue. Significantly, a growing body of evidence supports the superiority of levetiracetam over the older antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), in terms of efficacy and safety.

SUMMARY

Optimum management of postoperative complications is incorporated as an integral part of the augmented quality of care in patients undergoing craniotomy surgery, aiming to improve outcomes. This review may serve as a benchmark for neuroanesthetists for heightened clinical awareness and prompt institution of well-documented practices.

Levetiracetam Versus Phenytoin for Seizure Prophylaxis Following Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Seizure following traumatic brain injury (TBI) constitutes a common complication that requires effective prevention to improve the outcome of TBI. Phenytoin has been the only recommended antiepileptic drug (AED) for seizure prophylaxis; however, several shortcomings have affected its use. Intravenous levetiracetam has been available since 2006 and has been increasingly accepted as a seizure prophylaxis for brain injury, mainly due to its favorable pharmacokinetic features and minimal adverse events profile. However, the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam versus phenytoin for seizure prophylaxis following TBI are not well clarified.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam versus phenytoin for seizure prophylaxis following TBI.

METHODS

We conducted a search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases to March 2016, and screened original research that included patients with TBI who received levetiracetam. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled observational cohort studies that compared levetiracetam and phenytoin, as well as uncontrolled case series regarding prophylactic levetiracetam following TBI. The outcomes included early or late seizure prophylaxis and safety. The estimates of seizure prophylaxis were pooled using a meta-analysis, and the estimates for the case series were pooled using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 1614 patients from 11 studies were included in this review, of whom 1285 patients from eight controlled studies (one RCT and seven cohort studies) were included in the meta-analysis. Levetiracetam was not superior to phenytoin with regard to early seizure prophylaxis (risk ratio [RR] 1.10, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.64-1.88); the estimate of early seizure incidence was 0.05 (95 % CI 0.02-0.08). Three studies that assessed late seizure did not indicate the superiority of levetiracetam to phenytoin. There were no differences in mortality during hospitalization or after 6 months, or in the number of patients with adverse reactions between levetiracetam and phenytoin.

CONCLUSIONS

Levetiracetam does not appear to be superior to phenytoin in efficacy or safety with regard to early or late seizure prophylaxis following TBI; however, no class I evidence was identified. Additional evidence from high-quality studies is required.

Efficacy and safety of prophylactic levetiracetam in supratentorial brain tumour surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

The aim of this study was to perform an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of prophylactic administration of levetiracetam in brain tumour patients.

METHOD

A systematic review of studies published until April 2015 was conducted using Scopus/Elsevier, EMBASE and MEDLINE. The search was limited to articles reporting results from adult patients, suffering from brain tumour, undergoing supratentorial craniotomy for tumour resection or biopsy and administered levetiracetam in the perioperative period for seizure prophylaxis. Outcomes included the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam, as well as the tolerability of the specific regimen, defined by the discontinuation of the treatment due to side effects.

RESULTS

The systematic review included 1148 patients from 12 studies comparing levetiracetam with no treatment, phenytoin and valproate, while only 243 patients from three studies, comparing levetiracetam vs phenytoin efficacy and safety, were included in the meta-analysis. The combined results from the meta-analysis showed that levetiracetam administration was followed by significantly fewer seizures than treatment with phenytoin (OR = 0.12 [0.03-0.42]: χ(2) = 1.76: I(2) = 0%). Analysis also showed significantly fewer side effects in patients receiving levetiracetam, compared to other groups (P < 0.05). The combined results showed fewer side effects in the levetiracetam group compared to the phenytoin group (OR = 0.65 [0.14-2.99]: χ(2) = 8.79: I(2) = 77%).

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of prophylaxis with levetiracetam seems to be superior to that with phenytoin and valproate administration. Moreover, levetiracetam use demonstrates fewer side effects in brain tumour patients. Nevertheless, high risk of bias and moderate methodological quality must be taken into account when considering these results.