From the EEG and Epilepsy Unit (P.D.S., M.S.), Department of Clinical Neurosciences and Faculty of Medicine of Geneva, University Hospital of Geneva; Medical Faculty (S.M.B., S.M., R.S.) and Department of Clinical Research (R.S.), University of Basel; and Department of Intensive Care (S.S., S.R., S.M., R.S.) and Division of Neurophysiology (S.R., R.S.), Department of Neurology, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland.
Neurology. 2021 Aug 10;97(6):e564-e576. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000012292. Epub 2021 May 27.
To explore the safety and efficacy of artificial coma induction to treat status epilepticus (SE) immediately after first-line antiseizure treatment instead of following the recommended approach of first using second-line drugs.
Clinical and electrophysiologic data of all adult patients treated for SE from 2017 to 2018 in the Swiss academic medical care centers from Basel and Geneva were retrospectively assessed. Primary outcomes were return to premorbid neurologic function and in-hospital death. Secondary outcomes were the emergence of complications during SE, duration of SE, and intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays.
Of 230 patients, 205 received treatment escalation after first-line medication. Of those, 27.3% were directly treated with artificial coma and 72.7% with second-line nonanesthetic antiseizure drugs. Of the latter, 16.6% were subsequently put on artificial coma after failure of second-line treatment. Multivariable analyses revealed increasing odds for coma induction after first-line treatment with younger age, the presence of convulsions, and an increased SE severity as quantified by the Status Epilepticus Severity Score (STESS). While outcomes and complications did not differ compared to patients with treatment escalation according to the guidelines, coma induction after first-line treatment was associated with shorter SE duration and ICU and hospital stays.
Early induction of artificial coma is performed in more than every fourth patient and especially in younger patients presenting with convulsions and more severe SE. Our data demonstrate that this aggressive treatment escalation was not associated with an increase in complications but with shorter duration of SE and ICU and hospital stays.
This study provides Class III evidence that early induction of artificial coma after unsuccessful first-line treatment for SE is associated with shorter duration of SE and ICU and hospital stays compared to the use of a second-line nonanesthetic antiseizure drug instead of or before anesthetics, without an associated increase in complications.
探索在一线抗癫痫治疗后立即进行人工诱导昏迷以治疗癫痫持续状态(SE)的安全性和有效性,而不是遵循先使用二线药物的推荐方法。
回顾性评估了 2017 年至 2018 年期间,巴塞尔和日内瓦瑞士学术医疗中心所有接受 SE 治疗的成年患者的临床和电生理数据。主要结局是恢复到发病前的神经功能和院内死亡。次要结局是 SE 期间出现并发症、SE 持续时间以及重症监护病房(ICU)和住院时间。
在 230 名患者中,205 名在一线药物治疗后接受了治疗升级。其中,27.3%直接接受人工昏迷治疗,72.7%接受二线非麻醉抗癫痫药物治疗。后者中有 16.6%在二线治疗失败后随后接受人工昏迷治疗。多变量分析显示,在一线治疗后进行昏迷诱导的可能性随着年龄的增长、存在抽搐以及根据癫痫持续状态严重程度评分(STESS)量化的 SE 严重程度增加而增加。虽然与根据指南进行治疗升级的患者相比,结果和并发症没有差异,但一线治疗后进行昏迷诱导与 SE 持续时间以及 ICU 和住院时间缩短相关。
超过四分之一的患者,特别是伴有抽搐和更严重 SE 的年轻患者,会进行早期人工诱导昏迷。我们的数据表明,这种积极的治疗升级并没有增加并发症的风险,反而与 SE 持续时间以及 ICU 和住院时间缩短有关。
本研究提供了 III 级证据,表明与二线非麻醉抗癫痫药物的使用或在麻醉之前相比,在一线抗癫痫治疗失败后立即进行人工诱导昏迷可使 SE 持续时间以及 ICU 和住院时间缩短,而不会增加并发症。