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

Efficiency and safety of high-dose undiluted intravenous push levetiracetam loading doses compared to intravenous infusion in seizing patients: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Intravenous (IV) push (IVP) is an alternative administration method for levetiracetam, but evidence evaluating it compared to IV piggyback (IVPB) for loading doses in acutely seizing patients is limited, particularly in patients with status epilepticus (SE). This study aimed to compare the efficiency and safety of IVP versus IVPB levetiracetam loading doses.

METHODS

This was a single-center sequential retrospective study conducted in adult (≥18 years) patients who received an IV levetiracetam loading dose (>2000 mg or ≥20 mg/kg) for acute or suspected seizure. The primary outcome was time to administration, compared between doses given as IVP versus IVPB. Secondary outcomes included rates of adverse events (AEs), rescue benzodiazepine or antiseizure medication administration, intubation, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 246 patients were included; 116 received IVP and 130 received IVPB loading doses. Median age was 56 years; most patients were male (62%) and White (60%) and had witnessed seizures (67%). Doses were administered for SE in 32 (27.5%) and 46 (35.4%) patients in the IVP and IVPB arms, respectively. Median time to administration was shorter in the IVP group (12 vs. 38 min, p < .001). Bradycardia (1.7% vs. 2.3%, p = .99), hypotension (7.8% vs. 12%, p = .30), sedation (6% vs. 12.3%, p = .09), intubation (10% vs. 8%, p = .37), ICU admission (32% vs. 39%, p = .31), and rescue medication administration (8.6% vs. 14.6% p = .10) were similar between groups. In SE patients, IVP was associated with shorter time to administration (12 vs. 44 min, p = .003) and lower odds of ICU admission after adjustment for age, dose, Status Epilepticus Severity Score, and seizure history (adjusted odds ratio = .23, 95% confidence interval = .06-.81).

SIGNIFICANCE

IVP reduced time to levetiracetam administration versus IVPB and was not associated with more AEs. Rescue agent use, intubation, and ICU admission were similar between arms, but IVP may reduce ICU admissions in SE patients. Prospective studies should assess the effectiveness of IVP versus IVPB.

Why have status epilepticus trials failed: Wrong drugs or wrong trials?

Despite burgeoning interest in trials in status epilepticus over the last 20 years, outcomes have yet to improve and a number of high profile studies have failed to deliver for a range of reasons. The range of reasons a trial may fail to meet the intended outcomes are discussed. Recent well designed, adequately powered studies in established status epilepticus failed to meet primary endpoints, but are nonetheless influencing practice, reflecting the importance of interpreting results in the context of broader literature, safety and practical considerations. Studies in refractory and super-refractory status epilepticus have yet to do so, frequently failing to deliver as hoped despite huge financial and human cost. The importance of reviewing regulatory frameworks, and our approach to trial design to address important clinical questions is reviewed, reflecting on lessons from the COVID-19 RECOVERY trials, and other disease areas, together with the potential associated with the use artificial intelligence tools. This paper is based on a presentation made at the 9th London-Innsbruck Colloquium on Status Epilepticus and Acute Seizures in April 2024.

The initial treatment in convulsive status epilepticus in China: A multi-center observational study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the initial treatment of patients with convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) in a resource-limited region of China, and to discuss the difference of in-hospital outcomes and economic costs between those with guideline-recommended initial treatment and those without.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we screened adult patients discharged with the diagnosis of CSE in four centers in west China. Individuals with different exposure to the initial drug were divided into benzodiazepine (BDZ) and non-BDZ group for outcome comparison. The primary outcomes were seizure control, and the ratio of patients who developed refractory SE. The secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at discharge, in-hospital respiratory support rate, length, and cost of the stay.

RESULTS

Three-hundred and thirteen patients (127, 40.6% were women) with CSE were included. The median age was 43 (range 16-92). There were 152 (48.6%) patients initially treated with BDZ. Among the 36 who received midazolam as initial treatment, twenty-six received an insufficient dose. The other 116 (76.3%) patients in the BDZ group chose diazepam as initial treatment. Fifteen of them (12.9%) were treated underdose. In the non-BDZ group (161, 51.4%), antiseizure medications (ASMs) and/or coma-induced drugs were used as initial treatment. Among those initially administrated ASMs, intramuscular phenobarbital (38,37.6%) and valproate (46, 52.3%) were most frequently seen. There was a significant difference in the time latency to initial treatment and etiology between BDZ and non-BDZ group. The non-BDZ group reported a higher cessation rate after initial treatment compared to the BDZ group (P = 0.012). No significant difference in other primary and secondary outcomes.

SIGNIFICANCE

Non-adherence and underdosing of the initial treatment of SE were common in China. However, the non-BDZ group showed a better seizure control rate. The effect came from early aggressive medication, that is, the combination of ASMs and anesthesia. Non-BDZ group was not inferior to BDZs in terms of seizure control, the occurrence of in-hospital death, and poor outcome at discharge. More robust evidence is needed in developing settings when choosing the initial treatment.

What have we learned from the RAMPART and ESETT randomized controlled trials?

Lessons learned from the Rapid Anticonvulsant Medication Prior to Arrival Trial (RAMPART) and Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial (ESETT) trials are considered in three ways. First, by asking about the questions the trials were primarily designed to answer, then about the context of the intervention and characteristics of the patients described in secondary analyses, and finally, about what was learned about how to conduct trials in this space. The talk concludes with suggestions and a vision for how to best conduct future trials investigating status epilepticus. This paper was presented at the 8th London-Innsbruck Colloquium on Status Epilepticus and Acute Seizures held in September 2022.

First-Response ABCDE Management of Status Epilepticus: A Prospective High-Fidelity Simulation Study

Respiratory infections following status epilepticus (SE) are frequent, and associated with higher mortality, prolonged ICU stay, and higher rates of refractory SE. Lack of airway protection may contribute to respiratory infectious complications. This study investigates the order and frequency of physicians treating a simulated SE following a systematic Airways-Breathing-Circulation-Disability-Exposure (ABCDE) approach, identifies risk factors for non-adherence, and analyzes the compliance of an ABCDE guided approach to SE with current guidelines. We conducted a prospective single-blinded high-fidelity trial at a Swiss academic simulator training center. Physicians of different affiliations were confronted with a simulated SE. Physicians (n = 74) recognized SE and performed a median of four of the five ABCDE checks (interquartile range 3–4). Thereof, 5% performed a complete assessment. Airways were checked within the recommended timeframe in 46%, breathing in 66%, circulation in 92%, and disability in 96%. Head-to-toe (exposure) examination was performed in 15%. Airways were protected in a timely manner in 14%, oxygen supplied in 69%, and antiseizure drugs (ASDs) administered in 99%. Participants’ neurologic affiliation was associated with performance of fewer checks (regression coefficient −0.49; p = 0.015). We conclude that adherence to the ABCDE approach in a simulated SE was infrequent, but, if followed, resulted in adherence to treatment steps and more frequent protection of airways.

Management of status epilepticus: a narrative review

Status epilepticus causes prolonged or repetitive seizures that, if left untreated, can lead to neuronal injury, severe disability, coma and death in paediatric and adult populations. While convulsive status epilepticus can be diagnosed using clinical features alone, non-convulsive status epilepticus requires confirmation by electroencephalogram. Early seizure control remains key in preventing the complications of status epilepticus. This is especially true for convulsive status epilepticus, which has stronger evidence supporting the benefit of treatment on outcomes. When status epilepticus becomes refractory, often due to gamma-aminobutyric acid and N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor modulation, anaesthetic drugs are needed to suppress seizure activity, of which there is limited evidence regarding the selection, dose or duration of their use. Seizure monitoring with electroencephalogram is often needed when patients do not return to baseline or during anaesthetic wean; however, it is resource-intensive, costly, only available in highly specialised centres and has not been shown to improve functional outcomes. Thus, the treatment goals and aggressiveness of therapy remain under debate, especially for non-convulsive status epilepticus, where prolonged therapeutic coma can lead to severe complications. This review presents an evidence-based, clinically-oriented and comprehensive review of status epilepticus and its definitions, aetiologies, treatments, outcomes and prognosis at different stages of the patient's journey.