Antiseizure agents in critical illness

Author(s):  
Sebastian Pollandt ◽  
Lori Shutter

Seizures are a common problem in intensive care units (ICU) and the advent of continuous electroencephalography is demonstrating that the incidence of seizures is still underestimated. Many patients considered encephalopathic from any cause are now found to be in non-convulsive status epilepticus. While the significance of non-convulsive seizures remains unclear, there is little disagreement that these seizures should be treated with antiseizure agents and prevention of any type of seizure is a reasonable therapeutic goal. Many antiseizure agents have been studied in ICU populations and extensive experience exists with drugs such as phenytoin, valproate, or pentobarbital. Since the previous edition of this textbook, several new antiseizure agents have been introduced. Levetiracetam, topiramate, and lacosamide have been established as reasonable pharmacologic options, in particular for treatment of status epilepticus. Patients with seizures in the ICU often present with challenging clinical scenarios, which influence the choice of antiseizure agents. For example, reduced liver or renal function, especially if needing continuous renal replacement therapy or intermittent haemodialysis, has an impact on drug level variability and susceptibility to seizure development. ICU patients will typically require a multitude of pharmacological agents for their specific clinical situation and drug–drug interactions must be considered. Additionally, many medications used in ICUs are associated with seizures, in particular, certain antibiotics. Overall, the development of new drugs and better monitoring methods will undoubtedly improve our ability to control seizures in ICU patients, but currently no treatment has been shown to be universally effective for challenges, such as refractory status epilepticus.

2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (10) ◽  
pp. 2164-2170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominique Belcour ◽  
Julien Jabot ◽  
Benjamin Grard ◽  
Arnaud Roussiaux ◽  
Cyril Ferdynus ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 202-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ikuko Laccheo ◽  
Hasan Sonmezturk ◽  
Amar B. Bhatt ◽  
Luke Tomycz ◽  
Yaping Shi ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 01 (03) ◽  
pp. E189-E203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephan Rüegg

AbstractNonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) is defined by permanent electroclinical nonconvulsive epileptic activity or a series of nonconvulsive seizures without recovery to baseline. This “silent” manifestation of lasting neurological symptoms, like aphasia, confusion, etc., impedes easily recognizing NCSE. The most important diagnostic step often is to consider the possibility of NCSE. NCSE can only be confirmed by an immediate EEG recording. Epidemiological studies show slight preponderance of convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) over NCSE (60:40%); however, this might result from lack of recognition of NCSE because of its very unspectacular manifestation. Regarding pathophysiology, the neuronal mechanisms are identical for both NCSE and CSE, but they spare the primary motor neurons. Permanent hyperexcitability may damage the neurons involved in NCSE the same way as the motor neurons in CSE. However, NCSE is spared from the life-threatening secondary pathophysiological sequelae of CSE (lactic acidosis, respiratory exhaustion, rhabdomyolsis, etc.). Nevertheless, autonomic dysregulation (arrhythmias (ventricular tachycardia/asystolia), apneas) may also expose the patient to substantial acute risks. There are a myriad of causes for NCSE and they are mainly medication errors (insufficient adherence or addition of new drugs with interactions) in patients with known epilepsy. In these patients and in those without known epilepsy, other causes include metabolic, toxic, structural (tumors, hemorrhages, ischemia), infectious, inflammatory, and autoimmune causes. Thus, it is germane to extensively search for the cause of the NCSE because the immediate and proper therapy of the underlying cause of, especially the acute symptomatic, forms of NCSE is at least as important as the antiictal treatment.


Pathobiology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 88 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-169
Author(s):  
Williams Fernandes Barra ◽  
Dionison Pereira Sarquis ◽  
André Salim Khayat ◽  
Bruna Cláudia Meireles Khayat ◽  
Samia Demachki ◽  
...  

Identifying a microbiome pattern in gastric cancer (GC) is hugely debatable due to the variation resulting from the diversity of the studied populations, clinical scenarios, and metagenomic approach. <i>H. pylori</i> remains the main microorganism impacting gastric carcinogenesis and seems necessary for the initial steps of the process. Nevertheless, an additional non-<i>H. pylori</i> microbiome pattern is also described, mainly at the final steps of the carcinogenesis. Unfortunately, most of the presented results are not reproducible, and there are no consensual candidates to share the <i>H. pylori</i> protagonists. Limitations to reach a consistent interpretation of metagenomic data include contamination along every step of the process, which might cause relevant misinterpretations. In addition, the functional consequences of an altered microbiome might be addressed. Aiming to minimize methodological bias and limitations due to small sample size and the lack of standardization of bioinformatics assessment and interpretation, we carried out a comprehensive analysis of the publicly available metagenomic data from various conditions relevant to gastric carcinogenesis. Mainly, instead of just analyzing the results of each available publication, a new approach was launched, allowing the comprehensive analysis of the total sample amount, aiming to produce a reliable interpretation due to using a significant number of samples, from different origins, in a standard protocol. Among the main results, <i>Helicobacter</i> and <i>Prevotella</i> figured in the “top 6” genera of every group. <i>Helicobacter</i> was the first one in chronic gastritis (CG), gastric cancer (GC), and adjacent (ADJ) groups, while <i>Prevotella</i> was the leader among healthy control (HC) samples. Groups of bacteria are differently abundant in each clinical situation, and bacterial metabolic pathways also diverge along the carcinogenesis cascade. This information may support future microbiome interventions aiming to face the carcinogenesis process and/or reduce GC risk.


2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-57
Author(s):  
Kyle C McKenzie ◽  
Cecil D Hahn ◽  
Jeremy N Friedman

Abstract This guideline addresses the emergency management of convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) in children and infants older than 1 month of age. It replaces a previous position statement from 2011, and includes a new treatment algorithm and table of recommended medications based on new evidence and reflecting the evolution of clinical practice over the past several years. This statement emphasizes the importance of timely pharmacological management of CSE, and includes some guidance for diagnostic approach and supportive care.


2021 ◽  
pp. 155005942199171
Author(s):  
Adriana Gómez Domínguez ◽  
Raidili C. Mateo Montero ◽  
Alba Díaz Cid ◽  
Antonio J. P. Mazarro ◽  
Ignacio R. Bailly-Bailliere ◽  
...  

Introduction. Non-convulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) has been traditionally a challenging electroencephalographic (EEG) diagnosis. For this reason, Salzburg consensus criteria (SCC) have been proposed to facilitate correct diagnosis. Methods. We retrospectively reanalyzed 41 cases referred to our department (from 2016 to 2018) under the suspicion of NCSE. In this study, we compared the original description (standard criteria) versus the updated description (SCC) of the same EEG. Results. Originally, 15 patients were diagnosed as NCSE (37%) and 26 patients as no NCSE (63%), using the standard criteria. Then, we analyzed EEGs according to the SCC, which led to the following results: 9 patients fulfilled the criteria for definite NCSE (22%), 20 patients were diagnosed as possible NCSE (49%) and 12 patients were diagnosed as no NCSE (29%). Subsequently, when we analyze the outcome of possible NCSE cases, we note that 50% of these patients presented mild-poor outcome (neurological deficits, deceased). Indeed, we observed worse outcomes in patients previously diagnosed as no NCSE and untreated, specifically post-anoxic cases. Conclusions. Salzburg criteria seem to be a useful tool to support NCSE diagnosis, introducing the category of possible NCSE. In our study, we observed that it contributes to improving the prognosis and management of the patients. However, more prospective studies are needed to demonstrate the accuracy of SCC.


Seizure ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 88 ◽  
pp. 29-35
Author(s):  
Sinead Zeidan ◽  
Benjamin Rohaut ◽  
Hervé Outin ◽  
Francis Bolgert ◽  
Marion Houot ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document