Department of Neurology, Université Libre de Bruxelles-Hôpital Erasme, Route de Lennik, 808, 1070, Brussels, Belgium.
Department of Neurology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Tivoli, La Louvière, Belgium.
J Neurol. 2016 Apr;263(4):799-806. doi: 10.1007/s00415-016-8074-7. Epub 2016 Feb 25.
Current management guidelines for refractory status epilepticus (RSE) recommend the use of intravenous continuous anesthetic therapy, but there is little evidence to guide the selection of the most efficacious and safest drug. We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of midazolam versus thiopental for treatment of RSE. Retrospective case-control series of prospectively identified patients treated with midazolam or thiopental for RSE between January 2007 and December 2014. The primary outcome was control of RSE. Secondary outcomes included the rate of adverse events, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, hospital mortality and long-term neurological outcome, assessed with the extended Glasgow outcome scale (GOS-E) at discharge and at six 6 months. A total of 33 patients were included, 19 treated with midazolam and 14 with thiopental. Groups were similar for demographic data, clinical variables, comorbidity and the underlying cause of RSE. The rate of control of SE did not differ between groups (63 vs. 64 %). Adverse events including hypotension (mean arterial pressure <70 mmHg) requiring vasopressors, infections, anemia requiring red blood cells transfusion, leucopenia (<4000/mm(3)), and hyponatremia (<130 mEq/l) were more frequent during thiopental infusion. Furthermore, patients treated with midazolam had a shorter median ICU length of stay (6 vs. 15 days; p = 0.02) and better GOS-E at 6 months (8 [8] vs. 4 [4, 5]; p = 0.01). These findings suggest that continuous midazolam administration is as efficacious as thiopental infusion for the treatment of RSE; however, midazolam was associated with a significantly lower number of adverse events. These findings should be confirmed in larger multicenter trials.
目前,对于难治性癫痫持续状态(RSE)的治疗推荐使用静脉持续麻醉疗法,但几乎没有证据可以指导选择最有效和最安全的药物。我们进行了一项回顾性研究,评估咪达唑仑与硫喷妥钠治疗 RSE 的疗效和安全性。
回顾性病例对照研究,纳入了 2007 年 1 月至 2014 年 12 月期间接受咪达唑仑或硫喷妥钠治疗 RSE 的前瞻性识别患者。主要结局是 RSE 的控制情况。次要结局包括不良反应发生率、重症监护病房(ICU)和住院时间、住院死亡率和出院时及 6 个月时采用扩展格拉斯哥结局量表(GOS-E)评估的长期神经功能结局。
共纳入 33 例患者,其中 19 例接受咪达唑仑治疗,14 例接受硫喷妥钠治疗。两组在人口统计学数据、临床变量、合并症和 RSE 的潜在病因方面相似。两组 SE 控制率无差异(63%与 64%)。不良反应包括低血压(平均动脉压<70mmHg)需使用升压药、感染、需输血的贫血、白细胞减少症(<4000/mm³)和低钠血症(<130mEq/l),在硫喷妥钠输注期间更为常见。此外,接受咪达唑仑治疗的患者 ICU 住院时间中位数更短(6 天与 15 天;p=0.02),6 个月时 GOS-E 更好(8[8]与 4[4,5];p=0.01)。
这些发现表明,持续咪达唑仑给药与硫喷妥钠输注治疗 RSE 同样有效;然而,咪达唑仑相关不良反应的数量明显更少。这些发现应在更大的多中心试验中得到证实。