Anticonvulsant Primary and Secondary Prophylaxis for Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients: A Decision Analysis

The added value of risk assessment and subsequent targeted treatment for epileptic seizures after stroke: An early-HTA analysis

INTRODUCTION

The development of post-stroke epilepsy (PSE) is related to a worse clinical outcome in stroke patients. Adding a biomarker to the clinical diagnostic process for the prediction of PSE may help to establish targeted and personalized treatment for high-risk patients, which could lead to improved patient outcomes. We assessed the added value of a risk assessment and subsequent targeted treatment by conducting an early Health Technology Assessment.

METHODS

Interviews were conducted with four relevant stakeholders in the field of PSE to obtain a realistic view of the current healthcare and their opinions on the potential value of a PSE risk assessment and subsequent targeted treatment. The consequences on quality of life and costs of current care of a hypothetical care pathway with perfect risk assessment were modeled based on information from a literature review and the input from the stakeholders. Subsequently, the maximum added value (the headroom) was calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of this result to variation in assumed input parameters, i.e. the accuracy of the risk assessment, the efficacy of anti-seizure medication (ASM), and the probability of patients expected to develop PSE.

RESULTS

All stakeholders considered the addition of a predictive biomarker for the risk assessment of PSE to be of value. The headroom amounted to €12,983. The sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the headroom remained beneficial when varying the accuracy of the risk assessment, the ASM efficacy, and the number of patients expected to develop PSE.

DISCUSSION

We showed that a risk assessment for PSE development is potentially valuable. This work demonstrates that it is worthwhile to undertake clinical studies to evaluate biomarkers for the prediction of patients at high risk for PSE and to assess the value of targeted prophylactic treatment.

Current and Emerging Endovascular and Neurocritical Care Management Strategies in Large-Core Ischemic Stroke

The volume of infarcted tissue in patients with ischemic stroke is consistently associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Initial studies of endovascular thrombectomy for large-vessel occlusion excluded patients with established large-core infarcts, even when large volumes of salvageable brain tissue were present, due to the high risk of hemorrhagic transformation and reperfusion injury. However, recent retrospective and prospective studies have shown improved outcomes with endovascular thrombectomy, and several clinical trials were recently published to evaluate the efficacy of endovascular management of patients presenting with large-core infarcts. With or without thrombectomy, patients with large-core infarcts remain at high risk of in-hospital complications such as hemorrhagic transformation, malignant cerebral edema, seizures, and others. Expert neurocritical care management is necessary to optimize blood pressure control, mitigate secondary brain injury, manage cerebral edema and elevated intracranial pressure, and implement various neuroprotective measures. Herein, we present an overview of the current and emerging evidence pertaining to endovascular treatment for large-core infarcts, recent advances in neurocritical care strategies, and their impact on optimizing patient outcomes.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Seizure Prophylaxis Among Adults After Acute Ischemic Stroke

BACKGROUND

Older adults occasionally receive seizure prophylaxis in an acute ischemic stroke (AIS) setting, despite safety concerns. There are no trial data available about the net impact of early seizure prophylaxis on post-AIS survival.

METHODS

Using a stroke registry (American Heart Association's Get With The Guidelines) individually linked to electronic health records, we examined the effect of initiating seizure prophylaxis (ie, epilepsy-specific antiseizure drugs) within 7 days of an AIS admission versus not initiating in patients ≥65 years admitted for a new, nonsevere AIS (National Institutes of Health Stroke Severity score ≤20) between 2014 and 2021 with no recorded use of epilepsy-specific antiseizure drugs in the previous 3 months. We addressed confounding by using inverse-probability weights. We performed standardization accounting for pertinent clinical and health care factors (eg, National Institutes of Health Stroke Severity scale, prescription counts, seizure-like events).

RESULTS

The study sample included 151 patients who received antiseizure drugs and 3020 who did not. The crude 30-day mortality risks were 219 deaths per 1000 patients among epilepsy-specific antiseizure drugs initiators and 120 deaths per 1000 among noninitiators. After standardization, the estimated mortality was 251 (95% CI, 190-307) deaths per 1000 among initiators and 120 (95% CI, 86-144) deaths per 1000 among noninitiators, corresponding to a risk difference of 131 (95% CI, 65-200) excess deaths per 1000 patients. In the prespecified subgroup analyses, the risk difference was 52 (95% CI, 11-72) among patients with minor AIS and 138 (95% CI, 52-222) among moderate-to-severe AIS patients. Similarly, the risk differences were 86 (95% CI, 18-118) and 157 (95% CI, 57-219) among patients aged 65 to 74 years and ≥75 years, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a higher risk of 30-day mortality associated with initiating versus not initiating seizure prophylaxis within 7 days post-AIS. This study does not support the role of seizure prophylaxis in reducing 30-day poststroke mortality.

Anti-seizure medication treatment and outcomes in acute ischemic stroke patients undergoing continuous EEG monitoring

OBJECTIVES

To determine the association of anti-seizure medication (ASM) treatment with outcomes in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients undergoing continuous electroencephalography (cEEG).

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of AIS patients admitted between 2012 and 2019. The following are the inclusion criteria: age ≥ 18 years and ≥ 16 h of cEEG within the first 7 days of admission. ASM treatment exposure was defined as > 48 h of treatment after the first 24 h of cEEG. The primary outcome measure was 90-day mortality, and the secondary outcome was 90-day functional recovery (Modified Ranking Scale 0-3). Propensity scores were used to adjust for baseline covariates and presence of epileptiform abnormalities (seizures, periodic and rhythmic patterns).

RESULTS

One hundred thirteen patients met the inclusion criteria; 39 (34.5%) were exposed to ASM. ASM treatment was not associated with 90-day mortality (propensity adjusted HR 1.0 [0.31-3.27], p = 0.999) or functional outcomes (adjusted HR 0.99 [0.32-3.02], p = 0.989), compared to no treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, ASM treatment in AIS patients with cEEG abnormalities was not significantly associated with a change in 90-day mortality and functional recovery. Larger comparative effectiveness studies are indicated to identify which acute ischemic stroke patients with cEEG abnormalities benefit most from ASM treatment.