Hemodynamic Effects of Continuous Intravenous Midazolam in Refractory Status Epilepticus.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Meaghan Rettele, Grace Conroy, Adam Barron, Danielle Marut
{"title":"Hemodynamic Effects of Continuous Intravenous Midazolam in Refractory Status Epilepticus.","authors":"Meaghan Rettele, Grace Conroy, Adam Barron, Danielle Marut","doi":"10.1097/WNF.0000000000000635","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The primary objective of this study was to determine the proportion of patients who developed hemodynamic compromise (HDC) while receiving continuous intravenous midazolam (cIV-MDZ) for refractory status epilepticus (RSE). Secondary objectives included comparing cIV-MDZ and ketamine exposures, baseline and treatment characteristics, and clinical outcomes in patients that developed HDC to those that did not.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective nested case-control study included patients receiving cIV-MDZ for RSE at a tertiary academic medical center. Descriptive statistics and univariate analyses were used to compare exposures and outcomes in patients who developed HDC, defined as the initiation or escalation of vasopressors, to those who did not.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 112 patients included, 76 (67.9%) developed HDC and 36 (32.1%) did not. Patients who developed HDC received higher mean maximum doses of cIV-MDZ (0.88 mg/kg/h [standard deviation (SD) ± 0.58] vs. 0.55 mg/kg/h [SD ± 0.45], P < 0.001) and longer median durations of cIV-MDZ (2.5 days [interquartile range (IQR), 1.6-3.6] vs. 1.5 days [IQR, 0.7-2.1], P < 0.001). Patients who developed HDC also had longer intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (13.7 days [IQR, 7.7-19.6] vs. 8.9 days [IQR, 4.7-16.6], P = 0.05) and hospital admissions (21.2 days [IQR, 14.8-30.5] vs. 13.3 days [IQR, 8-23.5], P < 0.01). Seizure recurrence (HDC vs. no HDC, 34.2% vs. 25%; P = 0.33) and mortality (HDC vs. no HDC, 23.7% vs. 19.4%; P = 0.62) were similar between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The majority of patients receiving cIV-MDZ for RSE developed HDC. These results may help guide further studies seeking optimal cIV-MDZ doses for efficacy while minimizing adverse effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":10449,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neuropharmacology","volume":"48 4","pages":"112-117"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neuropharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/WNF.0000000000000635","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The primary objective of this study was to determine the proportion of patients who developed hemodynamic compromise (HDC) while receiving continuous intravenous midazolam (cIV-MDZ) for refractory status epilepticus (RSE). Secondary objectives included comparing cIV-MDZ and ketamine exposures, baseline and treatment characteristics, and clinical outcomes in patients that developed HDC to those that did not.

Methods: This retrospective nested case-control study included patients receiving cIV-MDZ for RSE at a tertiary academic medical center. Descriptive statistics and univariate analyses were used to compare exposures and outcomes in patients who developed HDC, defined as the initiation or escalation of vasopressors, to those who did not.

Results: Of 112 patients included, 76 (67.9%) developed HDC and 36 (32.1%) did not. Patients who developed HDC received higher mean maximum doses of cIV-MDZ (0.88 mg/kg/h [standard deviation (SD) ± 0.58] vs. 0.55 mg/kg/h [SD ± 0.45], P < 0.001) and longer median durations of cIV-MDZ (2.5 days [interquartile range (IQR), 1.6-3.6] vs. 1.5 days [IQR, 0.7-2.1], P < 0.001). Patients who developed HDC also had longer intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (13.7 days [IQR, 7.7-19.6] vs. 8.9 days [IQR, 4.7-16.6], P = 0.05) and hospital admissions (21.2 days [IQR, 14.8-30.5] vs. 13.3 days [IQR, 8-23.5], P < 0.01). Seizure recurrence (HDC vs. no HDC, 34.2% vs. 25%; P = 0.33) and mortality (HDC vs. no HDC, 23.7% vs. 19.4%; P = 0.62) were similar between groups.

Conclusions: The majority of patients receiving cIV-MDZ for RSE developed HDC. These results may help guide further studies seeking optimal cIV-MDZ doses for efficacy while minimizing adverse effects.

持续静脉注射咪达唑仑对难治性癫痫持续状态的血流动力学影响。
目的:本研究的主要目的是确定在接受持续静脉注射咪达唑仑(cIV-MDZ)治疗难治性癫痫持续状态(RSE)时发生血流动力学损害(HDC)的患者比例。次要目标包括比较cIV-MDZ和氯胺酮暴露,基线和治疗特征,以及HDC患者与非HDC患者的临床结果。方法:本回顾性巢式病例对照研究纳入了在三级学术医疗中心接受cIV-MDZ治疗RSE的患者。描述性统计和单变量分析用于比较HDC患者(定义为血管加压药物的开始或升级)与未发生HDC患者的暴露和结果。结果:112例患者中76例(67.9%)发展为HDC, 36例(32.1%)未发展为HDC。发生HDC的患者接受的cIV-MDZ平均最大剂量更高(0.88 mg/kg/h[标准差(SD)±0.58]比0.55 mg/kg/h [SD±0.45],P < 0.001), cIV-MDZ的中位持续时间更长(2.5天[四分位数间距(IQR), 1.6-3.6]比1.5天[IQR, 0.7-2.1], P < 0.001)。发生HDC的患者在重症监护病房(ICU)的住院时间(13.7天[IQR, 7.7-19.6]比8.9天[IQR, 4.7-16.6], P = 0.05)和住院时间(21.2天[IQR, 14.8-30.5]比13.3天[IQR, 8-23.5], P < 0.01)。癫痫复发率(HDC vs.无HDC, 34.2% vs. 25%;P = 0.33)和死亡率(HDC vs.无HDC, 23.7% vs. 19.4%;P = 0.62),组间相似。结论:大多数接受cIV-MDZ治疗的RSE患者发生HDC。这些结果可能有助于指导进一步的研究,寻求cIV-MDZ的最佳疗效剂量,同时尽量减少不良反应。
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
Clinical Neuropharmacology
Clinical Neuropharmacology 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
10.00%
发文量
63
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Neuropharmacology is a peer-reviewed journal devoted to the pharmacology of the nervous system in its broadest sense. Coverage ranges from such basic aspects as mechanisms of action, structure-activity relationships, and drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics, to practical clinical problems such as drug interactions, drug toxicity, and therapy for specific syndromes and symptoms. The journal publishes original articles and brief reports, invited and submitted reviews, and letters to the editor. A regular feature is the Patient Management Series: in-depth case presentations with clinical questions and answers.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信