Suppr超能文献

二线癫痫持续状态治疗:苯妥英、丙戊酸钠和左乙拉西坦的比较。

Second-line status epilepticus treatment: comparison of phenytoin, valproate, and levetiracetam.

机构信息

Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.

出版信息

Epilepsia. 2011 Jul;52(7):1292-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2011.03056.x. Epub 2011 Apr 11.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Phenytoin (PHT), valproic acid (VPA), or levetiracetam (LEV) are commonly used as second-line treatment of status epilepticus (SE), but comparative studies are not available.

METHODS

Among 279 adult SE episodes identified prospectively in our tertiary care hospital over 4 years, we retrospectively identified 187 episodes in which PHT, VPA, or LEV were given after benzodiazepines. Patients with postanoxic SE were not included. Demographics, clinical SE features, failure of second-line treatment to control SE, new handicap, and mortality at hospital discharge were assessed. Uni- and multivariable statistical analyses were applied to compare the three agents.

KEY FINDINGS

Each compound was used in about one third of SE episodes. VPA failed to control SE in 25.4%, PHT in 41.4%, and LEV in 48.3% of episodes in which these were prescribed. A deadly etiology was more frequent in the VPA group, whereas SE episodes tended to be more severe in the PHT group. After adjustment for these known SE outcome predictors, LEV failed more often than VPA [odds ratio (OR) 2.69; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19-6.08]; 16.8% (95% CI: 6.0-31.4%) of second-line treatment failures could be attributed to LEV. PHT was not statistically different from the other two compounds. Second-line treatment did not seem to influence new handicap and mortality, whereas etiology and the SE Severity Score (STESS) were robust independent predictors.

SIGNIFICANCE

Even without significant differences on outcome at discharge, LEV seems less efficient than VPA to control SE after benzodiazepines. A prospective comparative trial is needed to address this potentially concerning finding.

摘要

目的

苯妥英(PHT)、丙戊酸(VPA)或左乙拉西坦(LEV)常用于治疗癫痫持续状态(SE)的二线治疗,但尚无比较研究。

方法

在我们的三级医院前瞻性确定的 279 例成人 SE 发作中,我们回顾性确定了在使用苯二氮䓬类药物后给予 PHT、VPA 或 LEV 的 187 例 SE 发作。不包括后缺氧性 SE 患者。评估患者的人口统计学、临床 SE 特征、二线治疗未能控制 SE、新残疾和出院时死亡率。应用单变量和多变量统计分析比较三种药物。

主要发现

每种化合物在大约三分之一的 SE 发作中使用。在这些病例中,VPA 未能控制 SE 的比例为 25.4%,PHT 为 41.4%,LEV 为 48.3%。致命病因在 VPA 组中更为常见,而 PHT 组的 SE 发作则更为严重。在调整这些已知的 SE 预后预测因素后,LEV 的失败率高于 VPA [比值比(OR)2.69;95%置信区间(CI)1.19-6.08];二线治疗失败的 16.8%(95%CI:6.0-31.4%)可归因于 LEV。PHT 与其他两种化合物无统计学差异。二线治疗似乎不会影响新的残疾和死亡率,而病因和 SE 严重程度评分(STESS)是强有力的独立预测因素。

意义

即使在出院时的结局没有显著差异,LEV 似乎不如 VPA 能有效地控制苯二氮䓬类药物后的 SE。需要进行前瞻性比较试验来解决这一令人担忧的发现。

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