Refractory status epilepticus: A prospective observational study.

Summary Purpose: Status epilepticus (SE) that is resistant to two antiepileptic compounds is defined as refractory status epilepticus (RSE). In the few available retrospective studies, estimated RSE frequency is between 31% and 43% of patients presenting an SE episode; almost all seem to require a coma induction for treatment. We prospectively assessed RSE frequency, clinical predictors, and outcome in a tertiary clinical setting. Methods: Over 2 years we collected 128 consecutives SE episodes (118 patients) in adults. Clinical data and their relationship to outcome (mortality and return to baseline clinical conditions) were analyzed. Results: Twenty-nine of 128 SE episodes (22.6%) were refractory to first- and second-line antiepileptic treatments. Severity of consciousness impairment and de novo episodes were independent predictors of RSE. RSE showed a worse outcome than non-RSE (39% vs. 11% for mortality; 21% vs. 63% for return to baseline clinical conditions). Only 12 patients with RSE (41%) required coma induction for treatment. Discussion: This prospective study identifies clinical factors predicting the onset of SE refractoriness. RSE appears to be less frequent than previously reported in retrospective studies; furthermore, most RSE episodes were treated outside the intensive care unit (ICU). Nonetheless, we confirm that RSE is characterized by high mortality and morbidity.

Benzodiazepine overtreatment in status epilepticus is related to higher need of intubation and longer hospitalization.

Benzodiazepine (BDZ), a widely recognized first-line status epilepticus (SE) treatment, may lead to respiratory depression. This cohort study investigates the effect of BDZ doses in SE patients in terms of morbidity and mortality. It considers incident SE episodes from a prospective registry (2009-2012), comparing patients receiving standard BDZ dose to those receiving exceeding doses (>30% above recommended dose), in terms of likelihood to receive intubation, morbidity, and mortality. Duration of hospitalization was assessed for subjects needing intubation for airways protection (not for refractory SE treatment) versus matched subjects not admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). We identified 29 subjects receiving "excessive" and 173 "standard" BDZ dose; 45% of the overtreated patients were intubated for airways protection, but only 8% in the standard-dose group (p < 0.001). However, both groups presented similar clinical outcomes: 50% returned to baseline, 40% acquired a new handicap, and 10% died. Orotracheal intubation due to airways protection was associated with significantly longer hospitalization (mean 2 weeks vs. 1 week, p = 0.008). In conclusion, although administration of excessive BDZ doses in SE treatment does not seem to influence outcome, it is related to higher respiratory depression risk and longer hospitalization, potentially exposing patients to additional complications and costs.

Treatment Options in the Management of Status Epilepticus

Status epilepticus treatment involves the use of several pharmacologic compounds, which are conceptually divided into three successive and additional lines of action. Because of their rapid onset of action, benzodiazepines represent the first approach; these are followed by classic antiepileptic drugs that are administered intravenously. In refractory episodes, pharmacologic coma induction with an appropriate anesthetic is advocated. Apart from first-line compounds, the level of evidence for medications used in status epilepticus is extremely limited. It is important to specifically address etiology in order to maximize the impact of the antiepileptic therapy. Fine-tuning of the treatment strategy, mainly regarding the choice of whether to induce coma, should be approached by balancing the benefits of rapid control of the status epilepticus with the risks of adverse effects. Although each status epilepticus episode should be treated as rapidly as possible, it appears advisable to reserve coma induction for those forms, such as generalized convulsive status, that have been shown to present a consistent risk of neurologic sequelae.

Newer antiepileptic drugs in the treatment of status epilepticus: Impact on prognosis.

Newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are increasingly prescribed and seem to have a comparable efficacy as the classical AEDs; however, their impact on status epilepticus (SE) prognosis has received little attention. In our prospective SE database (2006-2010), we assessed the use of older versus newer AEDs (levetiracetam, pregabalin, topiramate, lacosamide) over time and its relationship to outcome (return to clinical baseline conditions, new handicap, or death). Newer AEDs were used more often toward the end of the study period (42% of episodes versus 30%). After adjustment for SE etiology, SE severity score, and number of compounds needed to terminate SE, newer AEDs were independently related to a reduced likelihood of return to baseline (p<0.001) but not to increased mortality. These findings seem in line with recent findings on refractory epilepsy. Also, in view of the higher price of the newer AEDs, well-designed, prospective assessments analyzing the impact of newer AEDs on efficacy and tolerability in patients with SE appear mandatory.

Second-line status epilepticus treatment: comparison of phenytoin, valproate, and levetiracetam.

Purpose:  Phenytoin (PHT), valproic acid (VPA), or levetiracetam (LEV) are commonly used as second-line treatment of status epilepticus (SE), but comparative studies are not available. Methods:  Among 279 adult SE episodes identified prospectively in our tertiary care hospital over 4 years, we retrospectively identified 187 episodes in which PHT, VPA, or LEV were given after benzodiazepines. Patients with postanoxic SE were not included. Demographics, clinical SE features, failure of second-line treatment to control SE, new handicap, and mortality at hospital discharge were assessed. Uni- and multivariable statistical analyses were applied to compare the three agents. Key Findings:  Each compound was used in about one third of SE episodes. VPA failed to control SE in 25.4%, PHT in 41.4%, and LEV in 48.3% of episodes in which these were prescribed. A deadly etiology was more frequent in the VPA group, whereas SE episodes tended to be more severe in the PHT group. After adjustment for these known SE outcome predictors, LEV failed more often than VPA [odds ratio (OR) 2.69; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19-6.08]; 16.8% (95% CI: 6.0-31.4%) of second-line treatment failures could be attributed to LEV. PHT was not statistically different from the other two compounds. Second-line treatment did not seem to influence new handicap and mortality, whereas etiology and the SE Severity Score (STESS) were robust independent predictors. Significance:  Even without significant differences on outcome at discharge, LEV seems less efficient than VPA to control SE after benzodiazepines. A prospective comparative trial is needed to address this potentially concerning finding.

Treatment deviating from guidelines does not influence status epilepticus prognosis.

Status epilepticus (SE) prognosis is related to nonmodifiable factors (age, etiology), but the exact role of drug treatment is unclear. This study was undertaken to address the prognostic role of treatment adherence to guidelines (TAG). We prospectively studied over 26 months a cohort of adults with incident SE (excluding postanoxic). TAG was assessed in terms of drug doses (± 30 % of recommendations) and medication sequence; its prognostic impact on mortality and return to baseline conditions was adjusted for etiology, SE severity [Status Epilepticus Severity Score (STESS)], and comorbidities. Of 225 patients, 26 (12 %) died and 82 (36 %) were discharged with a new handicap; TAG was observed in 142 (63 %). On univariate analysis, age, etiology, SE severity, and comorbidities were significantly related to outcome, while TAG was associated with neither outcome nor likelihood of SE control. Logistic regression for mortality identified etiology [odds ratio (OR) 18.8, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 4.3-82.8] and SE severity (STESS ≥ 3; OR 1.7, 95 % CI 1.2-2.4) as independent predictors, and for lack of return to baseline, again etiology (OR 7.4, 95 % CI 3.9-14.0) and STESS ≥ 3 (OR 1.7, 95 % CI 1.4-2.2). Similar results were found for the subgroup of 116 patients with generalized-convulsive SE. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analyses confirmed that TAG did not improve outcome prediction. This study of a large SE cohort suggests that treatment adherence to recommendations using current medications seems to play a negligible prognostic role (class III), confirming the importance of the biological background. Awaiting further treatment trials, it appears mandatory to apply resources towards identification of new therapeutic approaches.

When is a child with status epilepticus likely to have Dravet syndrome?

PURPOSE: To identify clinical risk factors for Dravet syndrome (DS) in a population of children with status epilepticus (SE). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Children aged between 1 month and 16 years with at least one episode of SE were referred from 6 pediatric neurology centers in Switzerland. SE was defined as a clinical seizure lasting for more than 30min without recovery of normal consciousness. The diagnosis of DS was considered likely in previously healthy patients with seizures of multiple types starting before 1 year and developmental delay on follow-up. The presence of a SCN1A mutation was considered confirmatory for the diagnosis. Data such as gender, age at SE, SE clinical presentation and recurrence, additional seizure types and epilepsy diagnosis were collected. SCN1A analyses were performed in all patients, initially with High Resolution Melting Curve Analysis (HRMCA) and then by direct sequencing on selected samples with an abnormal HRMCA. Clinical and genetic findings were compared between children with DS and those with another diagnosis, and statistical methods were applied for significance analysis. RESULTS: 71 children with SE were included. Ten children had DS, and 61 had another diagnosis. SCN1A mutations were found in 12 of the 71 patients (16.9%; ten with DS, and two with seizures in a Generalized Epilepsy with Febrile Seizures+(GEFS+) context). The median age at first SE was 8 months in patients with DS, and 41 months in those with another epilepsy syndrome (p<0.001). Nine of the 10 DS patients had their initial SE before 18 months. Among the 26 patients aged 18 months or less at initial SE, the risk of DS was significantly increased for patients with two or more episodes (56.3%), as compared with those who had only one episode (0.0%) (p=0.005). CONCLUSION: In a population of children with SE, patients most likely to have DS are those who present their initial SE episode before 18 months, and who present with recurrent SE episodes.

Statins are associated with decreased mortality risk after status epilepticus.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Statins display anti-inflammatory and anti-epileptogenic properties in animal models, and may reduce the epilepsy risk in elderly humans; however, a possible modulating role on outcome in patients with status epilepticus (SE) has not been assessed. METHODS: This cohort study was based on a prospective registry including all consecutive adults with incident SE treated in our center between April 2006 and September 2012. SE outcome was categorized at hospital discharge into 'return to baseline', 'new disability' and 'mortality'. The role of potential predictors, including statins treatment on admission, was evaluated using a multinomial logistic regression model. RESULTS: Amongst 427 patients identified, information on statins was available in 413 (97%). Mean age was 60.9 (±17.8) years; 201 (49%) were women; 211 (51%) had a potentially fatal SE etiology; and 191 (46%) experienced generalized-convulsive or non-convulsive SE in coma. Statins (simvastatin, atorvastatin or pravastatin) were prescribed prior to admission in 76 (18%) subjects, mostly elderly. Whilst 208 (50.4%) patients returned to baseline, 58 (14%) died. After adjustment for established SE outcome predictors (age, etiology, SE severity score), statins correlated significantly with lower mortality (relative risk ratio 0.38, P = 0.046). CONCLUSION: This study suggests for the first time that exposure to statins before an SE episode is related to its outcome, involving a possible anti-epileptogenic role. Other studies are needed to confirm this intriguing finding.

Status epilepticus: impact of therapeutic coma on outcome.

OBJECTIVES: Therapeutic coma is advocated in guidelines for management of refractory status epilepticus; this is, however, based on weak evidence. We here address the specific impact of therapeutic coma on status epilepticus outcome. DESIGN: Retrospective assessment of a prospectively collected cohort. SETTING: Academic hospital. PATIENTS: Consecutive adults with incident status epilepticus lasting greater than or equal to 30 minutes, admitted between 2006 and 2013. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We recorded prospectively demographics, clinical status epilepticus features, treatment, and outcome at discharge and retrospectively medical comorbidities, hospital stay, and infectious complications. Associations between potential predictors and clinical outcome were analyzed using multinomial logistic regressions. Of 467 patients with incident status epilepticus, 238 returned to baseline (51.1%), 162 had new disability (34.6%), and 67 died (14.3%); 50 subjects (10.7%) were managed with therapeutic coma. Therapeutic coma was associated with poorer outcome in the whole cohort (relative risk ratio for new disability, 6.86; 95% CI, 2.84-16.56; for mortality, 9.10; 95% CI, 3.17-26.16); the effect was more important in patients with complex partial compared with generalized convulsive or nonconvulsive status epilepticus in coma. Prevalence of infections was higher (odds ratio, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.66-8.75), and median hospital stay in patients discharged alive was longer (16 d [range, 2-240 d] vs 9 d [range, 1-57 d]; p < 0.001) in subjects managed with therapeutic coma. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides class III evidence that therapeutic coma is associated with poorer outcome after status epilepticus; furthermore, it portends higher infection rates and longer hospitalizations. These data suggest caution in the straightforward use of this approach, especially in patients with complex partial status epilepticus.

A definition and classification of status epilepticus - Report of the ILAE Task Force on Classification of Status Epilepticus.

The Commission on Classification and Terminology and the Commission on Epidemiology of the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) have charged a Task Force to revise concepts, definition, and classification of status epilepticus (SE). The proposed new definition of SE is as follows: Status epilepticus is a condition resulting either from the failure of the mechanisms responsible for seizure termination or from the initiation of mechanisms, which lead to abnormally, prolonged seizures (after time point t1 ). It is a condition, which can have long-term consequences (after time point t2 ), including neuronal death, neuronal injury, and alteration of neuronal networks, depending on the type and duration of seizures. This definition is conceptual, with two operational dimensions: the first is the length of the seizure and the time point (t1 ) beyond which the seizure should be regarded as "continuous seizure activity." The second time point (t2 ) is the time of ongoing seizure activity after which there is a risk of long-term consequences. In the case of convulsive (tonic-clonic) SE, both time points (t1 at 5 min and t2 at 30 min) are based on animal experiments and clinical research. This evidence is incomplete, and there is furthermore considerable variation, so these time points should be considered as the best estimates currently available. Data are not yet available for other forms of SE, but as knowledge and understanding increase, time points can be defined for specific forms of SE based on scientific evidence and incorporated into the definition, without changing the underlying concepts. A new diagnostic classification system of SE is proposed, which will provide a framework for clinical diagnosis, investigation, and therapeutic approaches for each patient. There are four axes: (1) semiology; (2) etiology; (3) electroencephalography (EEG) correlates; and (4) age. Axis 1 (semiology) lists different forms of SE divided into those with prominent motor systems, those without prominent motor systems, and currently indeterminate conditions (such as acute confusional states with epileptiform EEG patterns). Axis 2 (etiology) is divided into subcategories of known and unknown causes. Axis 3 (EEG correlates) adopts the latest recommendations by consensus panels to use the following descriptors for the EEG: name of pattern, morphology, location, time-related features, modulation, and effect of intervention. Finally, axis 4 divides age groups into neonatal, infancy, childhood, adolescent and adulthood, and elderly.

Immunity and inflammation in status epilepticus and its sequelae: possibilities for therapeutic application.

Status epilepticus (SE) is a life-threatening neurological emergency often refractory to available treatment options. It is a very heterogeneous condition in terms of clinical presentation and causes, which besides genetic, vascular and other structural causes also include CNS or severe systemic infections, sudden withdrawal from benzodiazepines or anticonvulsants and rare autoimmune etiologies. Treatment of SE is essentially based on expert opinions and antiepileptic drug treatment per se seems to have no major impact on prognosis. There is, therefore, urgent need of novel therapies that rely upon a better understanding of the basic mechanisms underlying this clinical condition. Accumulating evidence in animal models highlights that inflammation ensuing in the brain during SE may play a determinant role in ongoing seizures and their long-term detrimental consequences, independent of an infection or auto-immune cause; this evidence encourages reconsideration of the treatment flow in SE patients.

Practice variability and efficacy of clonazepam, lorazepam, and midazolam in status epilepticus: A multicenter comparison.

OBJECTIVE: Benzodiazepines (BZD) are recommended as first-line treatment for status epilepticus (SE), with lorazepam (LZP) and midazolam (MDZ) being the most widely used drugs and part of current treatment guidelines. Clonazepam (CLZ) is also utilized in many countries; however, there is no systematic comparison of these agents for treatment of SE to date. METHODS: We identified all patients treated with CLZ, LZP, or MDZ as a first-line agent from a prospectively collected observational cohort of adult patients treated for SE in four tertiary care centers. Relative efficacies of CLZ, LZP, and MDZ were compared by assessing the risk of developing refractory SE and the number of antiseizure drugs (ASDs) required to control SE. RESULTS: Among 177 patients, 72 patients (40.62%) received CLZ, 82 patients (46.33%) LZP, and 23 (12.99%) MDZ; groups were similar in demographics and SE characteristics. Loading dose was considered insufficient in the majority of cases for LZP, with a similar rate (84%, 95%, and 87.5%) in the centers involved, and CLZ was used as recommended in 52% of patients. After adjustment for relevant variables, LZP was associated with an increased risk of refractoriness as compared to CLZ (odds ratio [OR] 6.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.66-15.5) and with an increased number of ASDs needed for SE control (OR 4.35, 95% CI 1.8-10.49). SIGNIFICANCE: CLZ seems to be an effective alternative to LZP and MDZ. LZP is frequently underdosed in this setting. These findings are highly relevant, since they may impact daily practice.

Status epilepticus of inflammatory etiology: A cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Inflammation-related epilepsy is increasingly recognized; however, studies on status epilepticus (SE) are very infrequent. We therefore aimed to determine the frequency of inflammatory etiologies in adult SE, and to assess related demographic features and outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of a prospective registry of adult patients with SE treated in our center, from January 2008 to June 2014, excluding postanoxic causes. We classified SE episodes into 3 etiologic categories: infectious, autoimmune, and noninflammatory. Demographic and clinical variables were analyzed regarding their relationship to etiologies and functional outcome. RESULTS: Among the 570 SE consecutive episodes, 33 (6%) were inflammatory (2.5% autoimmune; 3.3% infectious), without any change in frequency over the study period. Inflammatory SE episodes involved younger patients (mean age 53 vs 61 years, p = 0.015) and were more often refractory to initial antiepileptic treatment (58% vs 38%, odds ratio = 2.19, 95% confidence interval = 1.07-4.47, p = 0.041), despite similar clinical outcome. Subgroup analysis showed that, compared with infectious SE episodes, autoimmune SE involved younger adults (mean age 44 vs 60 years, p = 0.017) and was associated with lower morbidity (return to baseline conditions in 71% vs 32%, odds ratio = 5.41, 95% confidence interval = 1.19-24.52, p = 0.043) without any difference in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing awareness, inflammatory SE etiologies were relatively rare; their occurrence in younger individuals and higher refractoriness to treatment did not have any effect on outcome. Autoimmune SE episodes also occurred in younger patients, but tended to have better outcomes in survivors than infectious SE.

Use of the EpiNet database for observational study of status epilepticus in Auckland, New Zealand.

The EpiNet project has been established to facilitate investigator-initiated clinical research in epilepsy, to undertake epidemiological studies, and to simultaneously improve the care of patients who have records created within the EpiNet database. The EpiNet database has recently been adapted to collect detailed information regarding status epilepticus. An incidence study is now underway in Auckland, New Zealand in which the incidence of status epilepticus in the greater Auckland area (population: 1.5 million) will be calculated. The form that has been developed for this study can be used in the future to collect information for randomized controlled trials in status epilepticus. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled "Status Epilepticus".

Status epilepticus: impact of therapeutic coma on outcome

L'état de mal épileptique (EME) est la plus fréquente urgence neurologique après les accidents vasculaires cérébraux, avec des hauts taux de morbidité et mortalité (Coeytaux et al., 2000). Son traitement est basé sur une approche en trois étapes (Meiekord et al., 2010). Dans ce contexte, un EME ne répondant pas aux benzodiazépines (1er ligne de traitement) suivi par des médicaments antiépileptiques (2ème ligne de traitement) est appelé EME réfractaire. Pour cette condition, représentant entre le 23% et le 43% des EME (Novy et al., 201O; Holtkamp et al., 2005), les actuelles recommandations préconisent un traitement par coma pharmacologique (3ème ligne de traitement), malgré un faible niveau d'évidence (Rossetti et al., 2011). En effet, l'impact du coma pharmacologique sur l'issue clinique n'a pas encore été clairement établi. Récemment, deux études américaines (Kowalski et al., 2012; Hocker et al., 2013) et une étude suisse (Sutter et al., 2014), ont montré un effet potentiellement délétère de ce type de traitement. Cependant, ces études étaient limitées à des patients hospitalisés aux soins intensifs et les analyses n'étaient pas ajustées pour tous les facteurs pronostiques connus. Le but de notre travail, publié dans Critical Gare Medicine (Marchi et al., 2015), était d'évaluer l'impact spécifique du coma pharmacologique sur le pronostic des patients avec EME, sans limitations aux soins intensifs et avec un·ajustement plus attentif concernant les autres facteurs pronostiques. En utilisant notre registre prospectif des patients avec EME traités aux Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, nous avons comparé l'issue clinique à la sortie de l'hôpital des patients traités avec ou sans coma pharmacologique (467 épisodes au total). Ensuite, nous avons utilisé une régression logistique multinomiale pour ajuster les résultats par les autres facteur pronostiques connus (âge, absence de crises épileptiques précédentes, étiologie potentiellement fatale, gravité clinique de l'EME, comorbidités). Nous · avons pu mettre ainsi en évidence que le traitement avec coma pharmacologique est associé avec une mauvaise issue clinique après un EME. De plus, nous avons pu po_ur la première fois montrer que cet effet est d'autant plus important chez les patients avec un EME de type partiel complexe au moment du traitement. Nos résultats suggèrent que l'utilisation du coma pharmacologique ne doit pas être indiscriminée dans l'EME réfractaire et qu'une évaluation de la situation clinique de base permet une optimisation son emploi.