Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Hitachi General Hospital, 2-1-1, Jonancho, Hitachi, Ibaraki, 317-0077, Japan.
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Health Economics, School of Public Health, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan.
Seizure. 2020 Aug;80:124-130. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2020.05.017. Epub 2020 May 22.
For status epilepticus, the choice of antiepileptic drugs for second-line treatment after benzodiazepine remains controversial: phenytoin or fosphenytoin are recommended, however, it has been unknown which is better. Using a nationwide database, we compared the efficacy and safety of them.
An observational study conducted with the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination inpatient database identified adult patients who had been admitted for status epilepticus and who had received intravenous diazepam on the day of admission from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2015. Propensity score matching was applied to compare outcomes of the phenytoin and fosphenytoin groups.
The analysis examined data of 5265 patients: 2969 patients received phenytoin; 2296 received fosphenytoin, on the day of admission. One-to-one propensity score matching created 1871 matched pairs. No significant difference was found for vasopressor use on the day of admission (4.2 % vs. 4.4 %; odds ratio 1.07; 95 % confidence intervals 0.77-1.48; p = 0.69), or for mechanical ventilation on the day of admission, in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, or total hospitalization cost. Higher age, comorbidity of cardiac diseases and lower body mass index were associated significantly with increased vasopressor use, whereas the dose of phenytoin equivalents and the choice of fosphenytoin were not.
This nationwide observational study found no evidence that fosphenytoin provides higher efficacy or safety than phenytoin for treatment of status epilepticus in adults after diazepam. Age, cardiac disease and low body mass index were identified as independent risk factors for vasopressor use in both phenytoin and fosphenytoin.
对于癫痫持续状态,苯二氮䓬类药物之后二线治疗的抗癫痫药物选择仍存在争议:推荐使用苯妥英或磷苯妥英,但哪种药物更好尚不清楚。本研究使用全国性数据库比较了这两种药物的疗效和安全性。
采用日本诊断程序组合住院数据库进行观察性研究,纳入 2011 年 1 月 1 日至 2015 年 12 月 31 日期间因癫痫持续状态入院且入院当天接受静脉注射地西泮的成年患者。采用倾向评分匹配比较苯妥英组和磷苯妥英组的结局。
分析共纳入 5265 例患者:2969 例患者接受苯妥英治疗;2296 例患者接受磷苯妥英治疗。通过 1:1 倾向评分匹配共创建了 1871 对匹配。入院当天使用血管加压药(4.2%比 4.4%;优势比 1.07;95%置信区间 0.77-1.48;p=0.69)或入院当天机械通气、院内死亡率、住院时间或总住院费用方面,两组间无显著差异。高龄、合并心脏疾病和较低的体重指数与血管加压药使用显著相关,而苯妥英等效剂量和磷苯妥英的选择则无显著相关性。
本项全国性观察性研究并未发现磷苯妥英在治疗苯二氮䓬类药物之后的成人癫痫持续状态方面优于苯妥英,能提供更高的疗效或安全性。年龄、心脏疾病和低体重指数被确定为苯妥英和磷苯妥英中血管加压药使用的独立危险因素。