Suppr超能文献

持续输注咪达唑仑与地西泮治疗难治性惊厥性癫痫持续状态的比较。

Continuous midazolam versus diazepam infusion for refractory convulsive status epilepticus.

作者信息

Singhi Sunit, Murthy Aruna, Singhi Pratibha, Jayashree M

机构信息

Department of Pediatrics, Advance Pediatric Centre, Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.

出版信息

J Child Neurol. 2002 Feb;17(2):106-10. doi: 10.1177/088307380201700203.

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of continuous midazolam and diazepam infusion for the control of refractory status epilepticus. An open-label, randomized control study was undertaken at the Pediatric Emergency and Intensive Care Service of a multidisciplinary teaching and referral hospital. Subjects included 40 children, 2 to 12 years of age, with refractory status epilepticus (motor seizures uncontrolled after two doses of diazepam, 0.3 mg/kg per dose, and phenytoin infusion, 20 mg/kg). Either continuous midazolam (n = 21) or diazepam infusion (n = 19) in incremental doses was administered. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of children in each group with successful control of refractory status epilepticus. The secondary outcome measure was the time to control seizure activity, recurrence of seizure after initial control, if any, the frequency of hypotension, and the need for ventilation. The two groups were similar in age (mean +/- SD = 4.9 +/- 43.6 months) and etiology. Twenty-three (57.5%) patients had acute central nervous system infection. Refractory status epilepticus was controlled in 18 (86%) and 17 (89%) patients in the midazolam and diazepam groups, respectively (P = not significant). The median time to seizure control was 16 minutes in both groups, but in the midazolam group, seizures recurred in more children (57% versus 16% in diazepam group; P < .05). The maximum dose (mean +/- SD) of midazolam and diazepam required was 5.3 +/- 2.6 microg/kg/min and 0.04 +/- 0.02 mg/kg/min, respectively. About half of the patients needed mechanical ventilation and 40% had hypotension in both groups, but the mortality was higher in the midazolam group (38%) as compared to the diazepam group (10.5%, P < .1 > .05). Continuous midazolam and diazepam infusions were equally effective for control of refractory status epilepticus. However, midazolam was associated with more seizure recurrence and higher mortality in refractory status epilepticus predominantly caused by central nervous system infections.

摘要

本研究的目的是比较持续输注咪达唑仑和地西泮控制难治性癫痫持续状态的疗效。在一家多学科教学和转诊医院的儿科急诊和重症监护科进行了一项开放标签的随机对照研究。研究对象包括40名2至12岁患有难治性癫痫持续状态的儿童(在给予两剂地西泮(每剂0.3mg/kg)和苯妥英钠输注(20mg/kg)后运动性癫痫发作仍未得到控制)。给予递增剂量的持续咪达唑仑输注(n = 21)或地西泮输注(n = 19)。主要结局指标是每组中难治性癫痫持续状态得到成功控制的儿童比例。次要结局指标是控制癫痫活动的时间、初始控制后癫痫复发情况(如有)、低血压的发生频率以及机械通气的需求。两组在年龄(平均±标准差=4.9±43.6个月)和病因方面相似。23名(57.5%)患者患有急性中枢神经系统感染。咪达唑仑组和地西泮组分别有18名(86%)和17名(89%)患者的难治性癫痫持续状态得到控制(P=无显著性差异)。两组控制癫痫发作的中位时间均为16分钟,但在咪达唑仑组,癫痫复发的儿童更多(57%,而地西泮组为16%;P<.05)。所需咪达唑仑和地西泮的最大剂量(平均±标准差)分别为5.3±2.6μg/kg/分钟和0.04±0.02mg/kg/分钟。两组中约一半的患者需要机械通气,40%的患者有低血压,但咪达唑仑组的死亡率(38%)高于地西泮组(10.5%,P<.1>.05)。持续输注咪达唑仑和地西泮在控制难治性癫痫持续状态方面同样有效。然而,在主要由中枢神经系统感染引起的难治性癫痫持续状态中,咪达唑仑与更多的癫痫复发和更高的死亡率相关。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验