Guidelines for Seizure Prophylaxis in Patients Hospitalized with Nontraumatic Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Clinical Practice Guideline for Health Care Professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Jennifer A Frontera, Appaji Rayi, Eljim Tesoro, Emily J Gilmore, Emily L Johnson, DaiWai Olson, Jamie S Ullman, Yuhong Yuan, Sahar Zafar, Shaun Rowe
{"title":"Guidelines for Seizure Prophylaxis in Patients Hospitalized with Nontraumatic Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Clinical Practice Guideline for Health Care Professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society.","authors":"Jennifer A Frontera, Appaji Rayi, Eljim Tesoro, Emily J Gilmore, Emily L Johnson, DaiWai Olson, Jamie S Ullman, Yuhong Yuan, Sahar Zafar, Shaun Rowe","doi":"10.1007/s12028-024-02183-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is practice heterogeneity in the use, type, and duration of prophylactic antiseizure medications (ASM) in patients hospitalized with acute nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing ASM primary prophylaxis in adults hospitalized with acute nontraumatic ICH. The following population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) questions were assessed: (1) Should ASM versus no ASM be used in patients with acute ICH with no history of clinical or electrographic seizures? (2) If an ASM is used, should levetiracetam (LEV) or phenytoin/fosphenytoin (PHT/fPHT) be preferentially used? and (3) If an ASM is used, should a long (> 7 days) versus short (≤ 7 days) duration of prophylaxis be used? The main outcomes assessed were early seizure (≤ 14 days), late seizures (> 14 days), adverse events, mortality, and functional and cognitive outcomes. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology to generate recommendations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The initial literature search yielded 1,988 articles, and 15 formed the basis of the recommendations. PICO 1: although there was no significant impact of ASM on the outcomes of early or late seizure or mortality, meta-analyses demonstrated increased adverse events and higher relative risk of poor functional outcomes at 90 days with prophylactic ASM use. PICO 2: we did not detect any significant positive or negative effect of PHT/fPHT compared to LEV for early seizures or adverse events, although point estimates tended to favor LEV. PICO 3: based on one decision analysis, quality-adjusted life-years were increased with a shorter duration of ASM prophylaxis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We suggest avoidance of prophylactic ASM in hospitalized adult patients with acute nontraumatic ICH (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence). If used, we suggest LEV over PHT/fPHT (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence) for a short duration (≤ 7 days; weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence).</p>","PeriodicalId":19118,"journal":{"name":"Neurocritical Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurocritical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-024-02183-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There is practice heterogeneity in the use, type, and duration of prophylactic antiseizure medications (ASM) in patients hospitalized with acute nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH).

Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing ASM primary prophylaxis in adults hospitalized with acute nontraumatic ICH. The following population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) questions were assessed: (1) Should ASM versus no ASM be used in patients with acute ICH with no history of clinical or electrographic seizures? (2) If an ASM is used, should levetiracetam (LEV) or phenytoin/fosphenytoin (PHT/fPHT) be preferentially used? and (3) If an ASM is used, should a long (> 7 days) versus short (≤ 7 days) duration of prophylaxis be used? The main outcomes assessed were early seizure (≤ 14 days), late seizures (> 14 days), adverse events, mortality, and functional and cognitive outcomes. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology to generate recommendations.

Results: The initial literature search yielded 1,988 articles, and 15 formed the basis of the recommendations. PICO 1: although there was no significant impact of ASM on the outcomes of early or late seizure or mortality, meta-analyses demonstrated increased adverse events and higher relative risk of poor functional outcomes at 90 days with prophylactic ASM use. PICO 2: we did not detect any significant positive or negative effect of PHT/fPHT compared to LEV for early seizures or adverse events, although point estimates tended to favor LEV. PICO 3: based on one decision analysis, quality-adjusted life-years were increased with a shorter duration of ASM prophylaxis.

Conclusions: We suggest avoidance of prophylactic ASM in hospitalized adult patients with acute nontraumatic ICH (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence). If used, we suggest LEV over PHT/fPHT (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence) for a short duration (≤ 7 days; weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence).

非创伤性脑出血住院患者癫痫预防指南:神经危重症护理学会卫生保健专业人员的临床实践指南
背景:急性非创伤性脑出血(ICH)住院患者预防性抗癫痫药物(ASM)的使用、类型和持续时间存在实践异质性。方法:我们进行了一项系统回顾和荟萃分析,评估急性非创伤性脑出血住院成人的ASM一级预防。评估了以下人群、干预、比较和结果(PICO)问题:(1)对于没有临床或电痉挛史的急性脑出血患者,是否应该采用ASM或不采用ASM ?(2)如果使用ASM,应该优先使用左乙拉西坦(LEV)还是苯妥英/磷苯妥英(PHT/fPHT) ?(3)如果使用ASM,应该使用较长的(≤7天)还是较短的(≤7天)预防持续时间?评估的主要结局为早期癫痫发作(≤14天)、晚期癫痫发作(≤14天)、不良事件、死亡率、功能和认知结局。我们使用建议分级评估、发展和评估方法来生成建议。结果:最初的文献检索产生了1988篇文章,其中15篇构成了推荐的基础。PICO 1:尽管ASM对早期或晚期癫痫发作或死亡率没有显著影响,但荟萃分析显示,在预防性ASM使用90天时,不良事件增加,功能不良结局的相对风险更高。PICO 2:与LEV相比,我们没有发现PHT/fPHT对早期癫痫发作或不良事件有任何显著的积极或消极影响,尽管点估计倾向于LEV。PICO 3:基于一项决策分析,质量调整生命年随着ASM预防持续时间的缩短而增加。结论:我们建议住院的成人急性非创伤性脑出血患者避免预防性ASM(弱推荐,证据质量很低)。如果使用LEV,我们建议短时间(≤7天;弱推荐,证据质量非常低)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neurocritical Care
Neurocritical Care 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
8.60%
发文量
221
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Neurocritical Care is a peer reviewed scientific publication whose major goal is to disseminate new knowledge on all aspects of acute neurological care. It is directed towards neurosurgeons, neuro-intensivists, neurologists, anesthesiologists, emergency physicians, and critical care nurses treating patients with urgent neurologic disorders. These are conditions that may potentially evolve rapidly and could need immediate medical or surgical intervention. Neurocritical Care provides a comprehensive overview of current developments in intensive care neurology, neurosurgery and neuroanesthesia and includes information about new therapeutic avenues and technological innovations. Neurocritical Care is the official journal of the Neurocritical Care Society.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信