Management of Refractory Status Epilepticus: An International Cohort Study (MORSE CODe) Analysis of Patients Managed in the ICU.
Journal
Neurology
ISSN: 1526-632X
Titre abrégé: Neurology
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0401060
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 09 2022
13 09 2022
Historique:
received:
24
09
2021
accepted:
19
04
2022
pubmed:
3
8
2022
medline:
15
9
2022
entrez:
2
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Status epilepticus that continues after the initial benzodiazepine and a second anticonvulsant medication is known as refractory status epilepticus (RSE). Management is highly variable because adequately powered clinical trials are missing. We aimed to determine whether propofol and midazolam were equally effective in controlling RSE in the intensive care unit, focusing on management in resource-limited settings. Patients with RSE treated with midazolam or propofol between January 2015 and December 2018 were retrospectively identified among 9 centers across 4 continents from upper-middle-income economies in Latin America and high-income economies in North America, Europe, and Asia. Demographics, Status Epilepticus Severity Score, etiology, treatment details, and discharge modified Rankin Scale (mRS) were collected. The primary outcome measure was good functional outcome defined as a mRS score of 0-2 at hospital discharge. Three hundred eighty-seven episodes of RSE (386 patients) were included, with 162 (42%) from upper-middle-income and 225 (58%) from high-income economies. Three hundred six (79%) had acute and 79 (21%) remote etiologies. Initial RSE management included midazolam in 266 (69%) and propofol in 121 episodes (31%). Seventy episodes (26%) that were initially treated with midazolam and 42 (35%) with propofol required the addition of a second anesthetic to treat RSE. Baseline characteristics and outcomes of patients treated with midazolam or propofol were similar. Breakthrough (odds ratio [OR] 1.6, 95% CI 1.3-2.0) and withdrawal seizures (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.7-2.5) were associated with an increased number of days requiring continuous intravenous anticonvulsant medications (cIV-ACMs). Prolonged EEG monitoring was associated with fewer days of cIV-ACMs (1-24 hours OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.2-0.9, and >24 hours OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-1.0; reference EEG <1 hour). This association was seen in both, high-income and upper-middle-income economies, but was particularly prominent in high-income countries. One hundred ten patients (28%) were dead, and 80 (21%) had good functional outcomes at hospital discharge. Outcomes of patients with RSE managed in the intensive care unit with propofol or midazolam infusions are comparable. Prolonged EEG monitoring may allow physicians to decrease the duration of anesthetic infusions safely, but this will depend on the implementation of RSE management protocols. Goal-directed management approaches including EEG targets may hold promise for patients with RSE. This study provides Class III data that propofol and midazolam are equivalently efficacious for RSE.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Status epilepticus that continues after the initial benzodiazepine and a second anticonvulsant medication is known as refractory status epilepticus (RSE). Management is highly variable because adequately powered clinical trials are missing. We aimed to determine whether propofol and midazolam were equally effective in controlling RSE in the intensive care unit, focusing on management in resource-limited settings.
METHODS
Patients with RSE treated with midazolam or propofol between January 2015 and December 2018 were retrospectively identified among 9 centers across 4 continents from upper-middle-income economies in Latin America and high-income economies in North America, Europe, and Asia. Demographics, Status Epilepticus Severity Score, etiology, treatment details, and discharge modified Rankin Scale (mRS) were collected. The primary outcome measure was good functional outcome defined as a mRS score of 0-2 at hospital discharge.
RESULTS
Three hundred eighty-seven episodes of RSE (386 patients) were included, with 162 (42%) from upper-middle-income and 225 (58%) from high-income economies. Three hundred six (79%) had acute and 79 (21%) remote etiologies. Initial RSE management included midazolam in 266 (69%) and propofol in 121 episodes (31%). Seventy episodes (26%) that were initially treated with midazolam and 42 (35%) with propofol required the addition of a second anesthetic to treat RSE. Baseline characteristics and outcomes of patients treated with midazolam or propofol were similar. Breakthrough (odds ratio [OR] 1.6, 95% CI 1.3-2.0) and withdrawal seizures (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.7-2.5) were associated with an increased number of days requiring continuous intravenous anticonvulsant medications (cIV-ACMs). Prolonged EEG monitoring was associated with fewer days of cIV-ACMs (1-24 hours OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.2-0.9, and >24 hours OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-1.0; reference EEG <1 hour). This association was seen in both, high-income and upper-middle-income economies, but was particularly prominent in high-income countries. One hundred ten patients (28%) were dead, and 80 (21%) had good functional outcomes at hospital discharge.
DISCUSSION
Outcomes of patients with RSE managed in the intensive care unit with propofol or midazolam infusions are comparable. Prolonged EEG monitoring may allow physicians to decrease the duration of anesthetic infusions safely, but this will depend on the implementation of RSE management protocols. Goal-directed management approaches including EEG targets may hold promise for patients with RSE.
CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE
This study provides Class III data that propofol and midazolam are equivalently efficacious for RSE.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35918156
pii: WNL.0000000000200818
doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000200818
pmc: PMC9536742
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anticonvulsants
0
Midazolam
R60L0SM5BC
Propofol
YI7VU623SF
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e1191-e1201Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2022 American Academy of Neurology.
Références
Brain. 2011 Oct;134(Pt 10):2802-18
pubmed: 21914716
Neurology. 2001 Sep 25;57(6):1036-42
pubmed: 11571331
Epilepsia. 2007 May;48(5):900-6
pubmed: 17433050
J Neurol. 2008 Oct;255(10):1561-6
pubmed: 18769858
Epilepsy Behav. 2019 Dec;101(Pt B):106449
pubmed: 31420291
Lancet Neurol. 2011 Oct;10(10):922-30
pubmed: 21939901
Neurocrit Care. 2011 Feb;14(1):4-10
pubmed: 20878265
Acta Neurol Scand. 2017 Jan;135(1):92-99
pubmed: 27080243
Neurology. 2004 May 25;62(10):1743-8
pubmed: 15159471
J Am Stat Assoc. 2010 Jun 1;105(490):612-620
pubmed: 20882122
Neurocrit Care. 2020 Feb;32(1):88-103
pubmed: 31486027
Epilepsia. 2019 May;60(5):921-934
pubmed: 30957219
N Engl J Med. 2001 Aug 30;345(9):631-7
pubmed: 11547716
J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2018 Nov 30;161:175-191
pubmed: 30165334
Arch Neurol. 2004 Jul;61(7):1090-4
pubmed: 15262740
Neurocrit Care. 2019 Dec;31(3):573-582
pubmed: 31342447
Crit Care. 2013 Sep 04;17(5):R190
pubmed: 24007625
Seizure. 2018 Aug;60:23-28
pubmed: 29906706
Neurology. 2012 Oct 23;79(17):1796-801
pubmed: 23054233
Epilepsy Behav. 2020 Jan;102:106686
pubmed: 31760201