Background: Phenytoin is standard of care for seizure prophylaxis following traumatic brain injury (TBI). Levetiracetam, an alternative antiepileptic drug, is utilized for seizure prophylaxis despite limited data supporting its use. Objective: Our primary outcome was post-TBI seizure activity measured by electroencephalogram (EEG) for levetiracetam versus phenytoin. Secondary outcomes were length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, requirement for additional antiepileptic drugs (AED), and drug and monitoring costs. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of patients admitted to neurosurgical or surgical trauma ICU. Adult patients with at least 1 day of EEG monitoring were included. Patients were excluded if they had history of epilepsy, prior TBI, less than 48 hours of AED therapy, or additional AED prior to EEG monitoring. Results: A total 90 patients met inclusion criteria, with 18 receiving levetiracetam and 72 receiving phenytoin. Prevalence of EEG-confirmed seizure activity was similar between the levetiracetam and phenytoin groups (28% vs 29%; P 5 .99). ICU length of stay (13 vs 18 days; P 5 .28), time to EEGconfirmed seizure activity (4 vs 6 days; P 5 .24), and duration of seizure prophylaxis (9 vs 14 days; P 5 .18) were also similar. The median daily cost of levetiracetam therapy was $43 compared to $55 for phenytoin therapy and monitoring (P 5 .08). When all anticonvulsant therapy and monitoring were included, costs were lower for the levetiracetam group ($45 vs $83; P 5 .02). Conclusion: Levetiracetam may provide an alternative treatment option for seizure prevention in TBI patients in the ICU. Total antiepileptic drug and monitoring costs were lower for levetiracetam patients.
Highlights New onset refractory status epilepticus (NORSE) is a recently defined clinical entity. No proven effective therapy for NORSE currently exists. Proposed mechanisms include autoimmunity or inflammatory cascade within the brain leading to propagation of seizures. Agents targeting the cytokines involved in this cascade are being investigated as potential treatments. Tocilizumab, an IL-6 inhibitor, successfully treated our patient after nine weeks of refractory seizure activity.
Purpose: To compare clinical response of intermittent bolus versus continuous infusion neostigmine for acute colonic pseudo-obstruction (ACPO). Acute colonic pseudo-obstruction occurs due to reduced colonic parasympathetic activity. Neostigmine is an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor that increases frequency of smooth muscle contraction by increasing acetylcholine at autonomic nervous system synapses. Although these administration modalities have been studied separately, they have never been compared. Methods: This retrospective study compared bolus versus continuous infusion neostigmine for ACPO. The primary outcome was initial clinical response, defined as bowel movement (BM) within 4 hours of bolus dose or 24 hours of initiation of continuous infusion. Secondary outcomes included time to BM, bowel diameter reduction at 24 hours, incidence of bradycardia, additional neostigmine requirements, and need for colonic decompression or surgical intervention. Results: Seventy-five patients were included (bolus n = 37; infusion n = 38). Median total 24-hour neostigmine dose was 2.0 mg (interquartile range [IQR]: 2.0-2.6) with bolus and 9.6 mg (IQR: 6.3-9.6) with continuous infusion. Initial clinical response was similar (infusion 81.6% vs bolus 62.2%, P = .06), but continuous infusion was associated with greater bowel diameter reduction (73.7% vs 40.5%, P = .004). Bolus administration had shorter time to BM (1.4 vs 3.5 hours, P = .0478) and increased need for colonic decompression (67.6% vs 39.5%, P = .0148). Bolus dosing was associated with less bradycardia (13.5% vs 39.5%, P = 0.011), with no difference in atropine usage (10.8% vs 5.3%, P = .43). Conclusion: Initial clinical response was similar between groups; however, continuous infusion neostigmine was associated with greater bowel diameter reduction at 24 hours. Bolus administration resulted in less bradycardia; however, given the lack of difference in atropine use, clinical significance is unknown. This study is the first to compare bolus versus continuous infusion neostigmine for ACPO. Further studies are needed to confirm findings.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.