Department of Neurological, Neuropsychological, Morphological and Movement Sciences, Section of Clinical Neurology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Eur J Neurol. 2012 Sep;19(9):1180-91. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2011.03606.x. Epub 2011 Dec 19.
Aim of this review was to evaluate efficacy and safety of intravenous valproate (IV VPA) in the treatment of generalized convulsive status epilepticus (GCSE) in patients of any age, synthesizing available evidences from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs on IV VPA administered in patients (no age restriction) for GCSE at any stage were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies were selected and data independently extracted. Following outcomes were considered: clinical seizure cessation after drug administration, seizure freedom at 24 h, and adverse effects. Outcomes were assessed using standard methods to calculate risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals. Five trials met inclusion criteria. Two different comparisons were available (IV VPA versus phenytoin (PHT), IV VPA versus IV Diazepam), but only the former included more than one study with enough information to permit a meta-analysis. Compared with PHT, VPA had statistically lower risk of adverse effects (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12-0.85), with no differences in GCSE cessation after drug administration (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.93-1.84) and in seizure freedom at 24 h (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88-1.06). This review suggests that IV VPA has a better tolerability than PHT in treatment of GCSE, without any statistically significant differences in terms of efficacy. More rigorous RCTs of VPA versus an appropriate comparator, in a well-defined population with a systematic definition of SE, are however required to conclude about efficacy and tolerability of VPA in clinical practice.
本综述旨在评估静脉用丙戊酸钠(IV VPA)治疗任何年龄患者全面性强直阵挛性癫痫持续状态(GCSE)的疗效和安全性,综合了随机对照试验(RCT)的现有证据。在 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库中搜索了针对任何阶段 GCSE 患者(无年龄限制)给予 IV VPA 的 RCT。选择研究并独立提取数据。考虑了以下结局:给药后临床痫性发作停止、24 小时内无癫痫发作和不良反应。使用标准方法评估结局,计算风险比(RR)及其 95%置信区间。五项试验符合纳入标准。有两种不同的比较(IV VPA 与苯妥英(PHT),IV VPA 与 IV 地西泮),但只有前者纳入了足够多的信息来进行荟萃分析的两项研究以上。与 PHT 相比,VPA 发生不良反应的风险统计学上更低(RR 0.31,95%CI 0.12-0.85),而在给药后癫痫发作停止(RR 1.31,95%CI 0.93-1.84)和 24 小时内无癫痫发作(RR 0.96,95%CI 0.88-1.06)方面无差异。本综述表明,IV VPA 在治疗 GCSE 方面比 PHT 具有更好的耐受性,在疗效方面没有任何统计学上的显著差异。然而,需要进行更多严格的 RCT,比较 VPA 与合适的对照药物,在具有系统 SE 定义的明确人群中,以得出关于 VPA 在临床实践中的疗效和耐受性的结论。