Refine
Document Type
- Article (15)
Has Fulltext
- yes (15)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (15)
Keywords
- seizure (5)
- Epilepsy (4)
- epilepsy (4)
- Seizure (3)
- levetiracetam (3)
- SV2A (2)
- TSC (2)
- adverse events (2)
- refractory (2)
- Angiomyolipoma (1)
Introduction: This study was designed to evaluate risk factors and incidence of epilepsy-related injuries and accidents (ERIA) at an outpatient clinic of a German epilepsy center providing healthcare to a mixed urban and rural population of over one million inhabitants.
Methods: Data acquisition was performed between 10/2013 and 09/2014 using a validated patient questionnaire on socioeconomic status, course of epilepsy, quality of life (QoL), depression, injuries and accidents associated with seizures or inadequate periictal patterns of behavior concerning a period of 3 months. Univariate analysis, multiple testing and regression analysis were performed to identify possible variables associated with ERIA.
Results: A total of 292 patients (mean age 40.8 years, range 18–86; 55% female) were enrolled and analyzed. Focal epilepsy was diagnosed in 75% of the patients. The majority was on an antiepileptic drug (AEDs) polytherapy (mean number of AEDs: 1.65). Overall, 41 patients (14.0%) suffered from epilepsy-related injuries and accidents in a 3-month period. Besides lacerations (n = 18, 6.2%), abrasions and bruises (n = 9, 3.1%), fractures (n = 6, 2.2%) and burns (n = 3, 1.0%), 17 mild injuries (5.8%) were reported. In 20 (6.8% of the total cohort) cases, urgent medical treatment with hospitalization was necessary. Epilepsy-related injuries and accidents were related to active epilepsy, occurrence of generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS) and drug-refractory course as well as reported ictal falls, ictal loss of consciousness and abnormal peri-ictal behavior in the medical history. In addition, patients with ERIA had significantly higher depression rates and lower QoL.
Conclusion: ERIA and their consequences should be given more attention and standardized assessment for ERIA should be performed in every outpatient visit.
Objective: We sought to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of intranasal midazolam (in‐MDZ) as first‐line inhospital therapy in patients with status epilepticus (SE) during continuous EEG recording.
Methods: Data on medical history, etiology and semiology of SE, anticonvulsive medication usage, efficacy and safety of in‐MDZ were retrospectively reviewed between 2015 and 2018. Time to end of SE regarding the administration of in‐MDZ and ß‐band effects were analyzed on EEG and with frequency analysis.
Results: In total, 42 patients (mean age: 52.7 ± 22.7 years; 23 females) were treated with a median dose of 5 mg of in‐MDZ (range: 2.5–15 mg, mean: 6.4 mg, SD: 2.6) for SE. The majority of the patients suffered from nonconvulsive SE (n = 24; 55.8%). In total, 24 (57.1%) patients were responders, as SE stopped following the administration of in‐MDZ without any other drugs being given. On average, SE ceased on EEG at 05:05 (minutes:seconds) after the application of in‐MDZ (median: 04:56; range: 00:29–14:53; SD:03:13). Frequency analysis showed an increased ß‐band on EEG after the application of in‐MDZ at 04:07 on average (median: 03:50; range: 02:20–05:40; SD: 01:09). Adverse events were recorded in six patients (14.3%), with nasal irritations present in five (11.9%) and prolonged sedation occurring in one (2.6%) patient.
Conclusions: This pharmaco‐EEG–based study showed that in‐MDZ is effective and well‐tolerated for the acute treatment of SE. EEG and clinical effects of in‐MDZ administration occurred within 04:07 and 5:05 on average. Intranasal midazolam appears to be an easily applicable and rapidly effective alternative to buccal or intramuscular application as first‐line treatment if an intravenous route is not available.
Background: Refractory status epilepticus (RSE) represents a serious medical condition requiring early and targeted therapy. Given the increasing number of elderly or multimorbid patients with a limitation of life-sustaining therapy (LOT) or within a palliative care setting (PCS), guidelines-oriented therapy escalation options for RSE have to be omitted frequently. Objectives: This systematic review sought to summarize the evidence for fourth-line antiseizure drugs (ASDs) and other minimally or non-invasive therapeutic options beyond guideline recommendations in patients with RSE to elaborate on possible treatment options for patients undergoing LOT or in a PCS. Methods: A systematic review of the literature in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, focusing on fourth-line ASDs or other minimally or non-invasive therapeutic options was performed in February and June 2020 using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. The search terminology was constructed using the name of the specific ASD or therapy option and the term ‘status epilepticus’ with the use of Boolean operators, e.g. “(brivaracetam) AND (status epilepticus)”. The respective Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Emtree terms were used, if available. Results: There is currently no level 1, grade A evidence for the use of ASDs in RSE. The best evidence was found for the use of lacosamide and topiramate (level 3, grade C), followed by brivaracetam, perampanel (each level 4, grade D) and stiripentol, oxcarbazepine and zonisamide (each level 5, grade D). Regarding non-medicinal options, there is little evidence for the use of the ketogenic diet (level 4, grade D) and magnesium sulfate (level 5, grade D) in RSE. The broad use of immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive treatment options in the absence of a presumed autoimmune etiology cannot be recommended; however, if an autoimmune etiology is assumed, steroid pulse, intravenous immunoglobulins and plasma exchange/plasmapheresis should be considered (level 4, grade D). Even if several studies suggested that the use of neurosteroids (level 5, grade D) is beneficial in RSE, the current data situation indicates that there is formal evidence against it. Conclusions: RSE in patients undergoing LOT or in a PCS represents a challenge for modern clinicians and epileptologists. The evidence for the use of ASDs in RSE beyond that in current guidelines is low, but several effective and well-tolerated options are available that should be considered in this patient population. More so than in any other population, advance care planning, advance directives, and medical ethical aspects have to be considered carefully before and during therapy.
The article Therapeutic Options for Patients with Refractory Status Epilepticus in Palliative Settings or with a Limitation of Life‑Sustaining Therapies: A Systematic Review, written by Laurent M. Willems, Sebastian Bauer, Kolja Jahnke, Martin Voss, Felix Rosenow, Adam Strzelczyk, was originally published Online First without Open Access. After publication in volume 34, issue 8, pages 801–826 the author decided to opt for Open Choice and to make the article an Open Access publication. Post-publication open access was funded by Projekt DEAL. Therefore, the copyright of the article has been changed to © The Author(s) 2021 and the article is forthwith distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. The original article has been corrected.
Hintergrund: Die Analyse krankheitsspezifischer Kosten gewinnt in einem zunehmend ökonomisch ausgerichteten Gesundheitssystem an Relevanz, wobei vor allem chronische Erkrankungen aufgrund der langen Krankheitsdauer sowie häufiger Hospitalisierung und Arztbesuche von besonderem Interesse sind. Epilepsien stellen eine häufige neurologische Erkrankung dar, welche mit paroxysmal auftretenden epileptischen Anfällen und häufig hiermit assoziierten Verletzungen einhergeht und alle Altersgruppen betrifft.
Ziel: Ziel der Arbeit ist die Aufarbeitung der stationären Behandlungskosten anfallsbedingter Verletzungen sowie die Analyse hinsichtlich relevanter kostenverursachender Faktoren. Mittels alternativer Kalkulation der Versorgungskosten soll zusätzlich der Frage nach potenziellen Vergütungsproblemen im aktuellen DRG-System („diagnosis related groups“) nachgegangen werden.
Methoden: Grundlage dieser monozentrischen, retrospektiven Analyse ist der tatsächliche Erlös der stationären Behandlung von 62 Patienten, die zwischen 01/2010 und 01/2018 im Universitätsklinikum Frankfurt aufgrund von Verletzungen im Rahmen epileptischer Anfälle erfolgte. Die Analyse potenzieller kostenverursachender Faktoren bezog sich auf relevante soziodemographische und klinische Aspekte, die alternative Kalkulation der Versorgungskosten wurde mit gängigen gesundheitsökonomischen Methoden durchgeführt.
Ergebnisse: Der mittlere DRG-Erlös betrug 7408 € (±8993 €, Median 5086 €, Spanne 563–44.519 €), die mittleren kalkulierten Kosten 9423 € (±11.113 €, 5626 €, Spanne 587–49.830 €). Als signifikant kostenverursachender Faktor konnte eine Liegedauer ≥7 Tage (p = 0,014) identifiziert werden. Aufgrund des signifikanten Unterschieds (p < 0,001) zwischen Erlös und kalkulierten Kosten erfolgte eine Analyse nach Faktoren für potenzielle Vergütungsprobleme, welche für eine Aufenthaltsdauer von ≥7 Tagen (p = 0,014) sowie für eine Behandlung auf Intensivstation (p = 0,019) signifikant verblieb.
Schlussfolgerung: Die stationären Versorgungskosten von Patienten mit Frakturen aufgrund epileptischer Anfälle sind hoch und daher gesundheitsökonomisch relevant. Generell scheint die auf Fallpauschalen basierende Vergütung nach G‑DRG die tatsächlichen Kosten zu decken, bei Patienten mit einer langen Liegedauer oder einen Aufenthalt auf Intensivstation können jedoch Vergütungsprobleme bestehen.