Efficacy of IV Ketamine in Refractory/Super-Refractory Status Epilepticus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 3.2 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Neurology. Clinical practice Pub Date : 2026-04-01 Epub Date: 2026-01-14 DOI:10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200584
Abhijit Vijay Lele, Alex Raquer, Jorge Mejia-Mantilla, Samuel Ern Hung Tsan, Gentle Sunder Shrestha, Victor Lin, Samuel Neal Blacker, Sean Marinelli, Peter Chee Seong Tan, Sarah Wahlster, Andres Gempeler
{"title":"Efficacy of IV Ketamine in Refractory/Super-Refractory Status Epilepticus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Abhijit Vijay Lele, Alex Raquer, Jorge Mejia-Mantilla, Samuel Ern Hung Tsan, Gentle Sunder Shrestha, Victor Lin, Samuel Neal Blacker, Sean Marinelli, Peter Chee Seong Tan, Sarah Wahlster, Andres Gempeler","doi":"10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200584","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Intravenous ketamine is increasingly used for refractory and super-refractory status epilepticus (RSE/SRSE), yet its efficacy and optimal use remain uncertain. We therefore aimed to synthesize the available evidence to quantify the effectiveness of ketamine in achieving seizure cessation and to explore differences in treatment characteristics between patients who respond and those who do not.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the pooled seizure cessation rate associated with intravenous ketamine. Secondary analyses compared ketamine initiation timing, dosing, and infusion duration between patients who achieved seizure cessation (responders) and those who did not (nonresponders).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen studies comprising 388 adult patients (249 responders, 139 nonresponders) were included. The pooled seizure cessation rate with ketamine was 64% (95% CI 49%-76%) with moderate heterogeneity (<i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 54.1%). Sensitivity analysis showed no single study substantially influenced results, supporting robustness. Responders received ketamine earlier (3.2 ± 2.6 days) than non-responders (4.3 ± 2.6 days), mean difference of -0.90 days (95% CI: -1.31 to -0.49; <i>p</i> < 0.0001). The mean maintenance dose was 2.5 ± 1.4 mg/kg/hr (responders: 2.5 ± 1.3; nonresponders: 2.6 ± 1.4), with no significant difference between groups (mean difference -0.14 mg/kg/hr; 95% CI -0.45 to 0.18; <i>p</i> = 0.39). Infusion duration averaged 5.0 ± 4.2 days in both groups, with no significant difference (mean difference -0.07 days; 95% CI -1.02 to 0.88; <i>p</i> = 0.88). Ketamine discontinuation due to adverse events was rare (0.7%, 3/55 patients).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Intravenous ketamine demonstrates consistent effectiveness and safety as an adjunctive therapy in RSE/SRSE. However, the timing of initiation cannot be reliably linked to improved clinical outcomes given current methodological limitations and heterogeneity across studies. Future prospective research using standardized definitions and rigorous temporal data collection is needed to clarify whether the timing of ketamine initiation independently influences therapeutic success and to define its optimal integration within established status epilepticus (SE) treatment algorithms.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>The systematic review was registered (June 7, 2024) with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, CRD42024549523).</p>","PeriodicalId":19136,"journal":{"name":"Neurology. Clinical practice","volume":"16 2","pages":"e200584"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12807489/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurology. Clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200584","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: Intravenous ketamine is increasingly used for refractory and super-refractory status epilepticus (RSE/SRSE), yet its efficacy and optimal use remain uncertain. We therefore aimed to synthesize the available evidence to quantify the effectiveness of ketamine in achieving seizure cessation and to explore differences in treatment characteristics between patients who respond and those who do not.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the pooled seizure cessation rate associated with intravenous ketamine. Secondary analyses compared ketamine initiation timing, dosing, and infusion duration between patients who achieved seizure cessation (responders) and those who did not (nonresponders).

Results: Fourteen studies comprising 388 adult patients (249 responders, 139 nonresponders) were included. The pooled seizure cessation rate with ketamine was 64% (95% CI 49%-76%) with moderate heterogeneity (I 2 = 54.1%). Sensitivity analysis showed no single study substantially influenced results, supporting robustness. Responders received ketamine earlier (3.2 ± 2.6 days) than non-responders (4.3 ± 2.6 days), mean difference of -0.90 days (95% CI: -1.31 to -0.49; p < 0.0001). The mean maintenance dose was 2.5 ± 1.4 mg/kg/hr (responders: 2.5 ± 1.3; nonresponders: 2.6 ± 1.4), with no significant difference between groups (mean difference -0.14 mg/kg/hr; 95% CI -0.45 to 0.18; p = 0.39). Infusion duration averaged 5.0 ± 4.2 days in both groups, with no significant difference (mean difference -0.07 days; 95% CI -1.02 to 0.88; p = 0.88). Ketamine discontinuation due to adverse events was rare (0.7%, 3/55 patients).

Discussion: Intravenous ketamine demonstrates consistent effectiveness and safety as an adjunctive therapy in RSE/SRSE. However, the timing of initiation cannot be reliably linked to improved clinical outcomes given current methodological limitations and heterogeneity across studies. Future prospective research using standardized definitions and rigorous temporal data collection is needed to clarify whether the timing of ketamine initiation independently influences therapeutic success and to define its optimal integration within established status epilepticus (SE) treatment algorithms.

Registration: The systematic review was registered (June 7, 2024) with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, CRD42024549523).

静脉氯胺酮治疗难治性/超难治性癫痫持续状态的疗效:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景和目的:静脉注射氯胺酮越来越多地用于治疗难治性和超难治性癫痫持续状态(RSE/SRSE),但其疗效和最佳使用方法仍不确定。因此,我们旨在综合现有证据,量化氯胺酮在实现癫痫发作停止方面的有效性,并探讨有反应和无反应患者之间治疗特征的差异。方法:我们进行了一项系统回顾和荟萃分析,以估计静脉注射氯胺酮相关的癫痫发作停止率。二级分析比较了氯胺酮起始时间、剂量和输注持续时间在癫痫发作停止的患者(有反应者)和没有(无反应者)之间。结果:纳入14项研究,包括388名成年患者(249名有反应者,139名无反应者)。氯胺酮的总癫痫停止率为64% (95% CI 49%-76%),具有中等异质性(I 2 = 54.1%)。敏感性分析显示,没有单一研究对结果产生实质性影响,支持稳健性。应答者比无应答者(4.3±2.6天)更早接受氯胺酮治疗(3.2±2.6天),平均差异为-0.90天(95% CI: -1.31 ~ -0.49; p < 0.0001)。平均维持剂量为2.5±1.4 mg/kg/hr(有反应者:2.5±1.3;无反应者:2.6±1.4),组间无显著差异(平均差异-0.14 mg/kg/hr; 95% CI -0.45 ~ 0.18; p = 0.39)。两组平均输注时间为5.0±4.2天,差异无统计学意义(平均差为-0.07天;95% CI为-1.02 ~ 0.88;p = 0.88)。因不良事件而停用氯胺酮的病例很少(0.7%,3/55例)。讨论:静脉注射氯胺酮作为RSE/SRSE的辅助治疗显示出一致的有效性和安全性。然而,由于目前方法学的局限性和研究的异质性,起始时间不能可靠地与改善的临床结果联系起来。未来需要使用标准化定义和严格的时间数据收集进行前瞻性研究,以明确氯胺酮起始时间是否独立影响治疗成功,并确定其在已建立的癫痫持续状态(SE)治疗算法中的最佳整合。注册:该系统综述已于2024年6月7日在国际前瞻性系统综述注册(PROSPERO, CRD42024549523)注册。
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
Neurology. Clinical practice
Neurology. Clinical practice CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: Neurology® Genetics is an online open access journal publishing peer-reviewed reports in the field of neurogenetics. The journal publishes original articles in all areas of neurogenetics including rare and common genetic variations, genotype-phenotype correlations, outlier phenotypes as a result of mutations in known disease genes, and genetic variations with a putative link to diseases. Articles include studies reporting on genetic disease risk, pharmacogenomics, and results of gene-based clinical trials (viral, ASO, etc.). Genetically engineered model systems are not a primary focus of Neurology® Genetics, but studies using model systems for treatment trials, including well-powered studies reporting negative results, are welcome.
×
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
小红书