Prasad Manya, Krishnan Pudukode R, Sequeira Reginald, Al-Roomi Khaldoon
Department of Neurology, All India Institue of Medical Sciences, C-II/7Ansari Nagar East, AIIMS Campus, Ansarinagar, New Delhi, India, 110029.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Sep 10;2014(9):CD003723. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003723.pub3.
Status epilepticus is a medical emergency associated with significant mortality and morbidity that requires immediate and effective treatment.
(1) To determine whether a particular anticonvulsant is more effective or safer to use in status epilepticus compared to another and compared to placebo.(2) To delineate reasons for disagreement in the literature regarding recommended treatment regimens and to highlight areas for future research.
For the latest update of this review, the following electronic databases were searched on 15/08/2013: the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register, CENTRAL The Cochrane Library July 2013, Issue 7, and MEDLINE (Ovid) 1946 to 15/08/2013.
Randomised controlled trials of participants with premonitory, early, established or refractory status epilepticus using a truly random or quasi-random allocation of treatments were included.
Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data.
Eighteen studies with 2755 participants were included. Few studies used the same interventions. Intravenous diazepam was better than placebo in reducing the risk of non-cessation of seizures (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.92), requirement for ventilatory support (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.94), or continuation of status epilepticus requiring use of a different drug or general anaesthesia (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.92). Intravenous lorazepam was better than placebo for risk of non-cessation of seizures (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.71) and for risk of continuation of status epilepticus requiring a different drug or general anaesthesia (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.71). Intravenous lorazepam was better than intravenous diazepam for reducing the risk of non-cessation of seizures (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.90) and had a lower risk for continuation of status epilepticus requiring a different drug or general anaesthesia (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.88). Intravenous lorazepam was better than intravenous phenytoin for risk of non-cessation of seizures (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). Diazepam gel was better than placebo gel in reducing the risk of non-cessation of seizures (RR 0.43 95% CI 0.30 to 0.62)For pre-hospital treatment, intramuscular midazolam is at least as effective as (probably more effective than) intravenous lorazepam in control of seizures (RR1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.27) and frequency of hospitalisation (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.97) or intensive care admissions (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.96). It was uncertain whether Intravenous valproate was better than intravenous phenytoin in reducing risk of non-cessation of seizures (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.00). Both levetiracetam and lorazepam were equally effective in aborting seizures (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.13). Results for other comparisons of anticonvulsant therapies were uncertain due to single studies with few participants.The body of randomised evidence to guide clinical decisions is small. It was uncertain whether any anticonvulsant therapy was better than another in terms of adverse effects, due to few studies and participants identified. The quality of the evidence from the included studies is not strong but appears acceptable. We were unable to make judgements for risk of bias domains incomplete outcome reporting (attrition bias) and selective outcome reporting (selection bias) due to unclear reporting by the study authors.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous lorazepam is better than intravenous diazepam or intravenous phenytoin alone for cessation of seizures. Intravenous lorazepam also carries a lower risk of continuation of status epilepticus requiring a different drug or general anaesthesia compared with intravenous diazepam. Both intravenous lorazepam and diazepam are better than placebo for the same outcomes. For pre hospital management, midazolam IM seemed more effective than lorazepam IV for cessation of seizures, frequency of hospitalisation and ICU admissions however,it was unclear whether the risk of recurrence of seizures differed between treatments. The results of other comparisons of anticonvulsant therapies versus each other were also uncertain. Universally accepted definitions of premonitory, early, established and refractory status epilepticus are required. Diazepam gel was better than placebo gel in reducing the risk of non-cessation of seizures. Results for other comparisons of anticonvulsant therapies were uncertain due to single studies with few participants.
癫痫持续状态是一种与显著死亡率和发病率相关的医疗急症,需要立即进行有效治疗。
(1)确定与另一种抗惊厥药物及安慰剂相比,某一特定抗惊厥药物用于癫痫持续状态时是否更有效或更安全。(2)阐明文献中关于推荐治疗方案存在分歧的原因,并突出未来研究的领域。
为了本次综述的最新更新,于2013年8月15日检索了以下电子数据库:Cochrane癫痫小组专业注册库、2013年7月第7期的Cochrane系统评价数据库以及1946年至2013年8月15日的MEDLINE(Ovid)。
纳入使用真正随机或准随机分配治疗方法的、针对有先兆、早期、确诊或难治性癫痫持续状态参与者的随机对照试验。
两名综述作者独立选择纳入试验、评估试验质量并提取数据。
纳入了18项研究,共2755名参与者。很少有研究使用相同的干预措施。静脉注射地西泮在降低癫痫发作未停止风险(风险比(RR)0.73,95%置信区间(CI)0.57至0.92)、通气支持需求(RR 0.39,95%CI 0.16至0.94)或需要使用不同药物或全身麻醉的癫痫持续状态持续风险(RR 0.73,95%CI 0.57至0.92)方面优于安慰剂。静脉注射劳拉西泮在癫痫发作未停止风险(RR 0.52,95%CI 0.38至0.71)以及需要使用不同药物或全身麻醉的癫痫持续状态持续风险(RR 0.52,95%CI 0.38至0.71)方面优于安慰剂。在降低癫痫发作未停止风险方面,静脉注射劳拉西泮优于静脉注射地西泮(RR 0.64,95%CI 0.45至0.90),且需要使用不同药物或全身麻醉的癫痫持续状态持续风险更低(RR 0.63,95%CI 0.45至0.88)。在癫痫发作未停止风险方面,静脉注射劳拉西泮优于静脉注射苯妥英钠(RR 0.62,95%CI 0.45至0.86)。地西泮凝胶在降低癫痫发作未停止风险方面优于安慰剂凝胶(RR 0.43,95%CI 0.30至0.62)。对于院前治疗,肌肉注射咪达唑仑在控制癫痫发作(RR 1.16,95%CI 1.06至1.27)以及住院频率(RR 0.88,95%CI 0.79至0.97)或重症监护病房入院率(RR 0.79,95%CI 0.65至0.96)方面至少与静脉注射劳拉西泮一样有效(可能更有效)。静脉注射丙戊酸在降低癫痫发作未停止风险方面是否优于静脉注射苯妥英钠尚不确定(RR 0.75,95%CI 0.28至2.00)。左乙拉西坦和劳拉西泮在中止癫痫发作方面同样有效(RR 0.97,95%CI 0.44至2.13)。由于参与者较少的单项研究,抗惊厥治疗其他比较的结果尚不确定。用于指导临床决策的随机证据较少。由于识别出的研究和参与者较少,不确定任何抗惊厥治疗在不良反应方面是否优于另一种治疗。纳入研究的证据质量不强但似乎可以接受。由于研究作者报告不清晰,我们无法对偏倚风险领域的不完整结果报告(失访偏倚)和选择性结果报告(选择偏倚)做出判断。
静脉注射劳拉西泮在终止癫痫发作方面优于单独静脉注射地西泮或静脉注射苯妥英钠。与静脉注射地西泮相比,静脉注射劳拉西泮使需要使用不同药物或全身麻醉的癫痫持续状态持续风险更低。静脉注射劳拉西泮和地西泮在相同结局方面均优于安慰剂。对于院前管理,肌肉注射咪达唑仑在终止癫痫发作、住院频率和重症监护病房入院方面似乎比静脉注射劳拉西泮更有效,然而,尚不清楚不同治疗之间癫痫发作复发风险是否存在差异。抗惊厥治疗相互之间其他比较的结果也不确定。需要先兆、早期、确诊和难治性癫痫持续状态的普遍接受的定义。地西泮凝胶在降低癫痫发作未停止风险方面优于安慰剂凝胶。由于参与者较少的单项研究,抗惊厥治疗其他比较的结果尚不确定。