David Panczykowski1, Matthew Pease1, Yin Zhao1, Gregory Weiner1, William Ares1, Elizabeth Crago1, Brian Jankowitz1, Andrew F Ducruet2. 1. From the Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, PA (D.P., M.P., Y.Z., G.W., W.A., B.J., A.F.D.); and School of Nursing, University of Pittsburgh, PA (E.C.). 2. From the Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, PA (D.P., M.P., Y.Z., G.W., W.A., B.J., A.F.D.); and School of Nursing, University of Pittsburgh, PA (E.C.). ducruetaf@upmc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The utility of prophylactic antiepileptic drug (AED) administration after spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage remains controversial. AEDs have not clearly been associated with a reduction in seizure incidence and have been associated with both neurological worsening and delayed functional recovery in this setting. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a prospectively collected database of subarachnoid hemorrhage patients admitted to our institution between 2005 and 2010. Between 2005 and 2007, all patients received prophylactic AEDs upon admission. After 2007, no patients received prophylactic AEDs or had AEDs immediately discontinued if initiated at an outside hospital. A propensity score-matched analysis was then performed to compare the development of clinical and electrographic seizures in these 2 populations. RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty three patients with spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage were analyzed, 43% of whom were treated with prophylactic AEDs upon admission. Overall, 10% of patients suffered clinical and electrographic seizures, most frequently occurring within 24 hours of ictus (47%). The incidence of seizures did not vary significantly based on the use of prophylactic AEDs (11 versus 8%; P=0.33). Propensity score-matched analyses suggest that patients receiving prophylactic AEDs had a similar likelihood of suffering seizures as those who did not (P=0.49). CONCLUSIONS: Propensity score-matched analysis suggests that prophylactic AEDs do not significantly reduce the risk of seizure occurrence in patients with spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The utility of prophylactic antiepileptic drug (AED) administration after spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage remains controversial. AEDs have not clearly been associated with a reduction in seizure incidence and have been associated with both neurological worsening and delayed functional recovery in this setting. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a prospectively collected database of subarachnoid hemorrhagepatients admitted to our institution between 2005 and 2010. Between 2005 and 2007, all patients received prophylactic AEDs upon admission. After 2007, no patients received prophylactic AEDs or had AEDs immediately discontinued if initiated at an outside hospital. A propensity score-matched analysis was then performed to compare the development of clinical and electrographic seizures in these 2 populations. RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty three patients with spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage were analyzed, 43% of whom were treated with prophylactic AEDs upon admission. Overall, 10% of patients suffered clinical and electrographic seizures, most frequently occurring within 24 hours of ictus (47%). The incidence of seizures did not vary significantly based on the use of prophylactic AEDs (11 versus 8%; P=0.33). Propensity score-matched analyses suggest that patients receiving prophylactic AEDs had a similar likelihood of suffering seizures as those who did not (P=0.49). CONCLUSIONS: Propensity score-matched analysis suggests that prophylactic AEDs do not significantly reduce the risk of seizure occurrence in patients with spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage.
Authors: Daniel M S Raper; Robert M Starke; Ricardo J Komotar; Rodney Allan; E Sander Connolly Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2012-09-25 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: Andrew M Naidech; Kurt T Kreiter; Nazli Janjua; Noeleen Ostapkovich; Augusto Parra; Christopher Commichau; E Sander Connolly; Stephan A Mayer; Brian-Fred M Fitzsimmons Journal: Stroke Date: 2005-01-20 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: E Sander Connolly; Alejandro A Rabinstein; J Ricardo Carhuapoma; Colin P Derdeyn; Jacques Dion; Randall T Higashida; Brian L Hoh; Catherine J Kirkness; Andrew M Naidech; Christopher S Ogilvy; Aman B Patel; B Gregory Thompson; Paul Vespa Journal: Stroke Date: 2012-05-03 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: F Fürbass; M M Hartmann; J J Halford; J Koren; J Herta; A Gruber; C Baumgartner; T Kluge Journal: Neurophysiol Clin Date: 2015-09-09 Impact factor: 3.734
Authors: Theresa Human; Michael N Diringer; Michelle Allen; Gregory J Zipfel; Michael Chicoine; Ralph Dacey; Rajat Dhar Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Andrew M Naidech; Jennifer Beaumont; Kathryn Muldoon; Eric M Liotta; Matthew B Maas; Matthew B Potts; Babak S Jahromi; David Cella; Shyam Prabhakaran; Jane L Holl Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Aaron F Struck; Andres A Rodriguez-Ruiz; Gamaledin Osman; Emily J Gilmore; Hiba A Haider; Monica B Dhakar; Matthew Schrettner; Jong W Lee; Nicolas Gaspard; Lawrence J Hirsch; M Brandon Westover Journal: Ann Clin Transl Neurol Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 4.511