Yoon Seon Jin, Joo Jin-Yang, Kim Yong Bae, Hong Chang-Ki, Chung Joonho
Department of Neurosurgery, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Department of Neurosurgery, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. ; Severance Institute for Vascular and Metabolic Research, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
J Cerebrovasc Endovasc Neurosurg. 2015 Sep;17(3):166-72. doi: 10.7461/jcen.2015.17.3.166. Epub 2015 Sep 30.
Routine use of prophylactic antiepileptic drugs (AED) has been debated. We retrospectively evaluated the effects of prophylactic AED on clinical outcomes in patients with a good clinical grade suffering from aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH).
Between September 2012 and December 2014, 84 patients who met the following criteria were included: (1) presence of a ruptured aneurysm; (2) Hunt-Hess grade 1, 2, or 3; and (3) without seizure presentation. Patients were divided into two groups; the AED group (n = 44) and the no AED group (n = 40). Clinical data and outcomes were compared between the two groups.
Prophylactic AEDs were used more frequently in patients who underwent microsurgery (84.1%) compared to those who underwent endovascular surgery (15.9%, p < 0.001). Regardless of prophylactic AED use, seizure episodes were not observed during the six-month follow-up period. No statistical difference in clinical outcomes at discharge (p = 0.607) and after six months of follow-up (p = 0.178) were between the two groups. After six months, however, favorable outcomes in the no AED group tended to increase and poor outcomes tended to decrease.
No difference in the clinical outcomes and systemic complications at discharge and after six months of follow-up was observed between the two groups. However, favorable outcomes in the no AED group showed a slight increase after six months. These findings suggest that discontinuation of the current practice of using prophylactic AED might be recommended in patients with a good clinical grade.
预防性抗癫痫药物(AED)的常规使用一直存在争议。我们回顾性评估了预防性AED对临床分级良好的动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血(aSAH)患者临床结局的影响。
2012年9月至2014年12月期间,纳入了84例符合以下标准的患者:(1)存在破裂动脉瘤;(2)Hunt-Hess分级为1、2或3级;(3)无癫痫发作表现。患者分为两组;AED组(n = 44)和非AED组(n = 40)。比较两组的临床数据和结局。
与接受血管内手术的患者(15.9%,p < 0.001)相比,接受显微手术的患者更频繁地使用预防性AED(84.1%)。无论是否使用预防性AED,在六个月的随访期内均未观察到癫痫发作。两组在出院时(p = 0.607)和随访六个月后(p = 0.178)的临床结局无统计学差异。然而,六个月后,非AED组的良好结局倾向于增加,不良结局倾向于减少。
两组在出院时及随访六个月后的临床结局和全身并发症方面无差异。然而,六个月后非AED组的良好结局略有增加。这些发现表明,对于临床分级良好的患者,可能建议停止目前使用预防性AED的做法。