Methodist University Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA.
Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Translational Science, University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, Memphis, TN, USA.
Neurocrit Care. 2018 Dec;29(3):491-495. doi: 10.1007/s12028-018-0560-6.
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Intravenous (IV) lacosamide use for status epilepticus has increased in recent years and is recommended for refractory status epilepticus by current guidelines. Per the lacosamide package labeling, the preferred route of administration is diluted and infused over 30-60 min; however, administration undiluted is also acceptable and recent literature demonstrated safety at a maximum rate of 80 mg per minute (Kellinghaus et al. in Acta Neurol Scand 123:137-141, 2011). Undiluted administration as an IV push has potential to increase efficiency of administration to patients needing urgent seizure control since it may be dispensed from automatic dispensing cabinets in patient care areas. This study aims to compare safety outcomes and efficiency of administration in patients receiving lacosamide IV push compared to IV piggyback.
We present a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients receiving lacosamide via IV piggyback or IV push from June 2016 to July 2017. Baseline characteristics, data related to potential safety concerns and timing of ordering, verification, and administration were collected. The primary safety outcomes were incidence of infusion site reactions, hypotension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] < 90 mm Hg), and bradycardia (heart rate [HR] < 50 beats per minute) documented within 2 h of each lacosamide dose. Secondary safety outcomes included the incidence of PR interval prolongation in patients with at least one electrocardiogram measured. The primary efficiency outcome was the time between order verification and administration.
Patients in the IV piggyback (n = 88) and IV push (n = 78) groups had similar baseline characteristics, initial dose, SBP, and HR. Hypotension (8 vs. 10.3%) and bradycardia (2.3 vs. 2.6%) rates were similar among both groups (p > 0.05). Only one patient in each group had documented PR prolongation, and no documented infusion reactions occurred. Median time from order verification to administration was significantly reduced in the IV push group (35 min vs. 1 h 49 min; p < 0.001).
Administration of lacosamide via IV push results in similar adverse effect rates to IV piggyback preparations with more efficient time to administration.
背景/目的:近年来,静脉(IV)拉考酰胺在治疗癫痫持续状态中的应用有所增加,且目前的指南推荐将其用于治疗难治性癫痫持续状态。根据拉考酰胺的药品说明书,推荐的给药途径为稀释后输注 30-60 分钟;然而,未经稀释给药也是可以接受的,最近的文献表明,最大输注速率为 80mg/分钟时是安全的(Kellinghaus 等人,《神经病学杂志》123:137-141, 2011)。未经稀释的静脉推注给药方式可能会提高需要紧急控制癫痫发作的患者的给药效率,因为它可以从患者护理区域的自动配药柜中分配。本研究旨在比较接受静脉推注与静脉滴注的拉考酰胺患者的安全性结局和给药效率。
我们进行了一项单中心、回顾性队列研究,纳入了 2016 年 6 月至 2017 年 7 月期间接受静脉滴注拉考酰胺的患者。收集了患者的基线特征、与潜在安全性问题相关的数据以及给药的医嘱、确认和实施时间。主要安全性结局为给药后 2 小时内记录的输注部位反应、低血压(收缩压[SBP] < 90mmHg)和心动过缓(心率[HR] < 50 次/分钟)的发生率。次要安全性结局包括至少有一次心电图测量的患者中 PR 间期延长的发生率。主要给药效率结局为医嘱确认与给药之间的时间。
静脉滴注组(n=88)和静脉推注组(n=78)患者的基线特征、初始剂量、SBP 和 HR 相似。两组的低血压(8%比 10.3%)和心动过缓(2.3%比 2.6%)发生率相似(p > 0.05)。两组各有 1 例患者记录到 PR 间期延长,但均未发生输注反应。静脉推注组从医嘱确认到给药的中位时间明显缩短(35 分钟比 1 小时 49 分钟;p < 0.001)。
静脉推注拉考酰胺的给药方式与静脉滴注制剂的不良反应发生率相似,但给药效率更高。