Intravenous lacosamide for treatment of status epilepticus.

Objectives -  Treatment of established status epilepticus (SE) requires immediate intravenous anticonvulsant therapy. Currently used first-line drugs may cause potentially hazardous side effects. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous lacosamide (LCM) in SE after failure of standard treatment. Methods -  We retrospectively analyzed 39 patients (21 women, 18 men, median age 62 years) from the hospital databases of five neurological departments in Germany, Austria and Switzerland between September 2008 and January 2010 who were admitted in SE and received at least one dose of intravenous LCM. Results -  Types of SE were generalized convulsive (n = 6), complex partial (n = 17) and simple partial (n = 16). LCM was administered after failure of benzodiazepins or other standard drugs in all but one case. Median bolus dose of LCM was 400 mg (range 200-400 mg), which was administered at 40-80 mg/min in those patients where infusion rate was documented. SE stopped after LCM in 17 patients, while 22 patients needed further anticonvulsant treatment. The success rate in patients receiving LCM as first or second drug was 3/5, as third drug 11/19, and as fourth or later drug 3/15. In five subjects, SE could not be terminated at all. No serious adverse events attributed to LCM were documented. Conclusions -  Intravenous LCM may be an alternative treatment for established SE after failure of standard therapy, or when standard agents are considered unsuitable.

Ictal cerebral positron emission tomography (PET) in focal status epilepticus.

The diagnosis of focal status epilepticus (SE) can be challenging, particularly when clinical manifestations leave doubts about its nature, and electroencephalography (EEG) is not conclusive. This work addresses the utility of ictal (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) in focal SE, which was performed in eight patients in whom SE was finally diagnosed. Clinical, MRI and EEG data were reviewed. (18)F-FDG-PET proved useful: (1) to establish the diagnosis of focal SE, when clinical elements were equivocal or the EEG did not show clear-cut epileptiform abnormalities; (2) to delineate the epileptogenic area in view of possible resective surgery; and (3) when clinical features, MRI and EEG were incongruent regarding the origin of SE. We suggest that ictal (18)F-FDG-PET may represent a valuable diagnostic tool in selected patients with focal SE or frequent focal seizures.

Intravenous Lacosamide for Treatment of Status Epilepticus after Failing First-Line Therapy

Rationale: Treatment of status epilepticus (SE) usually requires intravenous anticonvulsant therapy. Although there are established drugs of first choice for its treatment, potentially hazardous side effects of these agents are not uncommon. Lacosamide (LCM) is a novel anticonvulsant drug that is available as infusion solution. LCM could be an alternative for treatment of SE when the standard drugs fail or should be avoided. Methods: We retrospectively identified patients from the hospital databases of two German and one Swiss neurological departments (University Hospital Marburg, Klinikum Osnabrueck, University Hospital Lausanne) between September 1st 2008 and May 22nd 2009 who were admitted because of SE and received at least one dose of intravenous LCM for treatment of SE. Results: Seventeen patients (11 female, 6 male) were identified. Median age was 71 years. 3 patients suffered from generalized convulsive SE, 8 patients had significant reduction of awareness with or without subtle motor symptoms, 6 patients had a simple focal status without relevant reduction of awareness. Etiology was acute symptomatic in 5 patients, remote symptomatic without pre-existing epilepsy in 6 patients, remote symptomatic and pre-existing epilepsy in 5 patients, and unknown in 1 patient. LCM was administered after failure of first line therapy in all cases. The first LCM bolus was 400mg in 13 patients and 200mg in 4 patients. LCM administration stopped SE in 7 patients. In 2 of them, LCM was administered immediately after benzodiazepine administration, in the others after failure of benzodiazepines and other first-line and/or second-line drugs. In 3 patients, SE was terminated by other anticonvulsants like Phenytoin, Phenobarbital or Oxcarbazepine. In 5 patients, SE could only be terminated by intubation and application of high-dose Midazolam, Propofol and/or Thiopental. In 2 patients, SE could not be terminated in spite of high doses of barbiturates. There was no serious adverse event documented that could possibly be attributed to LCM Conclusions: Intravenous LCM may be an alternative treatment for SE after failure of benzodiazepins and other established drugs, or when such agents are considered unsuitable.

Proposition: Limbic encephalitis may represent limbic status epilepticus. A review of clinical and EEG characteristics.

Limbic encephalitis (LE) with waxing and waning neuropsychiatric manifestations including behavioral, personality, psychiatric, and memory changes can evolve over days to months. Many features of LE show remarkable overlap with the characteristics of mesial-temporal (limbic) status epilepticus (MTLSE or LSE). With LE, these prolonged impaired states are assumed not to be due to ongoing epileptic activity or MTLSE, because scalp EEGs usually show no epileptiform spike-wave activity; cycling behavioral and motor changes are attributed to LE; there may be little immediate improvement with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs); and of course, implanted electrodes are rarely used. Conversely, it is known that in pre-surgical patients with refractory limbic epilepsy, implanted electrodes have revealed limbic seizures that cannot be seen at the scalp. This paper assembles a chain of inferences to advance the proposition that refractory LE might represent LSE more often than is thought, and that implanted electrodes should be considered in some cases. We present two cases that suggest that LE was also LSE, one of which warranted implanted electrodes (case 1).

Which anesthetic should be used in the treatment of refractory status epilepticus?

While the treatment of refractory status epilepticus (SE) relies on the use of anesthetic agents, mostly barbiturates, propofol, or midazolam, the study of the available literature discloses that the evidence level is low. Therapeutic coma induction appears straightforward for generalized convulsive or subtle SE, but this approach is debated for complex partial SE. Each anesthetic has its own advocates, and specific advantages and risks; furthermore, several different protocols have been reported regarding the duration and depth of sedation. However, it seems that the biological background of the patient (especially the etiology) remains the main prognostic determinant in SE. There is a clear need of controlled trials regarding this topic.

Evaluation of a clinical tool for early etiology identification in status epilepticus.

OBJECTIVES: Because early etiologic identification is critical to select appropriate specific status epilepticus (SE) management, we aim to validate a clinical tool we developed that uses history and readily available investigations to guide prompt etiologic assessment. METHODS: This prospective multicenter study included all adult patients treated for SE of all but anoxic causes from four academic centers. The proposed tool is designed as a checklist covering frequent precipitating factors for SE. The study team completed the checklist at the time the patient was identified by electroencephalography (EEG) request. Only information available in the emergency department or at the time of in-hospital SE identification was used. Concordance between the etiology indicated by the tool and the determined etiology at hospital discharge was analyzed, together with interrater agreement. RESULTS: Two hundred twelve patients were included. Concordance between the etiology hypothesis generated using the tool and the finally determined etiology was 88.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 86.4-89.8) (κ = 0.88). Interrater agreement was 83.3% (95% CI 80.4-96) (κ = 0.81). SIGNIFICANCE: This tool is valid and reliable for identification early the etiology of an SE. Physicians managing patients in SE may benefit from using it to identify promptly the underlying etiology, thus facilitating selection of the appropriate treatment.

Oral pregabalin as an add-on treatment for status epilepticus.

Oral antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) represent possible add-on options in refractory status epilepticus (SE). In this setting, pregabalin (PGB) has not been reported before. Over the last 42 months, we identified 11 SE episodes (10 patients) treated with PGB in our hospital. Its use was prompted by the favorable pharmacokinetic profile, devoid of drug-drug interactions. The patients mostly had refractory, partial SE. Only two patients were managed in the intensive care unit (ICU). We found a definite electroclinical response in 5 of 11, already evident 24 h after PGB introduction, and a possible response (concomitantly with other AEDs) in 3 of 11 of the episodes; 3/11 did not respond. The treatment was well tolerated. Partial SE appeared to better respond than generalized convulsive SE. PGB appears to be an interesting option as add-on treatment in refractory partial SE.

Management and prognosis of status epilepticus according to hospital setting: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of status epilepticus (SE) is based on relatively little evidence although several guidelines have been published. A recent study reported a worse SE prognosis in a large urban setting as compared to a peripheral hospital, postulating better management in the latter. The aim of this study was to analyse SE episodes occurring in different settings and address possible explanatory variables regarding outcome, including treatment quality. METHODS: Over six months we prospectively recorded consecutive adults with SE (fit lasting five or more minutes) at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV) and in six peripheral hospitals (PH) in the same region. Demographical, historical and clinical variables were collected, including SE severity estimation (STESS score) and adherence to Swiss SE treatment guidelines. Outcome at discharge was categorised as "good" (return to baseline), or "poor" (persistent neurological sequelae or death). RESULTS: Of 54 patients (CHUV: 36; PH 18), 33% had a poor outcome. Whilst age, SE severity, percentage of SE episodes lasting less than 30 minutes and total SE duration were similar, fewer patients had a good outcome at the CHUV (61% vs 83%; OR 3.57; 95% CI 0.8-22.1). Mortality was 14% at the CHUV and 5% at the PH. Most treatments were in agreement with national guidelines, although less often in PH (78% vs 97%, P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Although not statistically significant, we observed a slightly worse SE prognosis in a large academic centre as compared to smaller hospitals. Since SE severity was similar in the two settings but adherence to national treatment guidelines was higher in the academic centre, further investigation on the prognostic role of SE treatment and outcome determinants is required.