Andrew M Naidech1,2,3, Jennifer Beaumont3, Kathryn Muldoon2,4, Eric M Liotta1, Matthew B Maas1,2, Matthew B Potts4, Babak S Jahromi4, David Cella3, Shyam Prabhakaran1,2, Jane L Holl2. 1. Department of Neurology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL. 2. Center for Healthcare Studies, Institute for Public Health and Medicine (IPHAM), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL. 3. Department of Medical Social Sciences and Center for Patient Centered Outcomes, Institute for Public Health and Medicine (IPHAM), Chicago, IL. 4. Department of Neurological Surgery, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Prophylactic levetiracetam is currently used in ~40% of patients with intracerebral hemorrhage, and the potential impact of levetircetam on health-related quality of life is unknown. We tested the hypothesis that prophylactic levetiracetam is independently associated with differences in cognitive function health-related quality of life. DESIGN: Patients with intracerebral hemorrhage were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. We performed mixed models for T-scores of health-related quality of life, referenced to the U.S. population at 50 ± 10, accounting for severity of injury and time to follow-up. SETTING: Academic medical center. PATIENTS: One-hundred forty-two survivors of intracerebral hemorrhage. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: T-scores of Neuro-Quality of Life Cognitive Function v2.0 was the primary outcome, whereas Neuro-Quality of Life Mobility v1.0 and modified Rankin Scale (a global functional scale) were secondary measures. We prospectively documented if prophylactic levetiracetam was administered and retrieved administration data from the electronic health record. Patients who received prophylactic levetiracetam had worse cognitive function health-related quality of life (T-score 5.1 points lower; p = 0.01) after adjustment for age (p = 0.3), National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (p < 0.000001), lobar hematoma (p = 0.9), and time of assessment; statistical models controlling for prophylactic levetiracetam and the Intracerebral Hemorrhage Score, a global measure of intracerebral hemorrhage severity, yielded similar results. Lower T-scores of cognitive function health-related quality of life at 3 months were correlated with more total levetiracetam dosage (p = 0.01) and more administered doses of levetiracetam in the hospital (p = 0.03). Patients who received prophylactic levetiracetam were more likely to have a lobar hematoma (27/38 vs 19/104; p < 0.001), undergo electroencephalography monitoring (15/38 vs 21/104; p = 0.02), but not more likely to have clinical seizures (4/38 vs 7/104; p = 0.5). Levetiracetam was not independently associated with the modified Rankin Scale scores or mobility health-related quality of life (p > 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic levetiracetam was independently associated with lower cognitive function health-related quality of life at follow-up after intracerebral hemorrhage.
OBJECTIVES: Prophylactic levetiracetam is currently used in ~40% of patients with intracerebral hemorrhage, and the potential impact of levetircetam on health-related quality of life is unknown. We tested the hypothesis that prophylactic levetiracetam is independently associated with differences in cognitive function health-related quality of life. DESIGN:Patients with intracerebral hemorrhage were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. We performed mixed models for T-scores of health-related quality of life, referenced to the U.S. population at 50 ± 10, accounting for severity of injury and time to follow-up. SETTING: Academic medical center. PATIENTS: One-hundred forty-two survivors of intracerebral hemorrhage. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: T-scores of Neuro-Quality of Life Cognitive Function v2.0 was the primary outcome, whereas Neuro-Quality of Life Mobility v1.0 and modified Rankin Scale (a global functional scale) were secondary measures. We prospectively documented if prophylactic levetiracetam was administered and retrieved administration data from the electronic health record. Patients who received prophylactic levetiracetam had worse cognitive function health-related quality of life (T-score 5.1 points lower; p = 0.01) after adjustment for age (p = 0.3), National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (p < 0.000001), lobar hematoma (p = 0.9), and time of assessment; statistical models controlling for prophylactic levetiracetam and the Intracerebral Hemorrhage Score, a global measure of intracerebral hemorrhage severity, yielded similar results. Lower T-scores of cognitive function health-related quality of life at 3 months were correlated with more total levetiracetam dosage (p = 0.01) and more administered doses of levetiracetam in the hospital (p = 0.03). Patients who received prophylactic levetiracetam were more likely to have a lobar hematoma (27/38 vs 19/104; p < 0.001), undergo electroencephalography monitoring (15/38 vs 21/104; p = 0.02), but not more likely to have clinical seizures (4/38 vs 7/104; p = 0.5). Levetiracetam was not independently associated with the modified Rankin Scale scores or mobility health-related quality of life (p > 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic levetiracetam was independently associated with lower cognitive function health-related quality of life at follow-up after intracerebral hemorrhage.
Authors: Kevin N Sheth; Sharyl R Martini; Charles J Moomaw; Sebastian Koch; Mitchell S V Elkind; Gene Sung; Steven J Kittner; Michael Frankel; Jonathan Rosand; Carl D Langefeld; Mary E Comeau; Salina P Waddy; Jennifer Osborne; Daniel Woo Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 7.914
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: Haichen Wang; Junling Gao; Timothy F Lassiter; David L McDonagh; Huaxin Sheng; David S Warner; John R Lynch; Daniel T Laskowitz Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2006 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Lewis B Morgenstern; J Claude Hemphill; Craig Anderson; Kyra Becker; Joseph P Broderick; E Sander Connolly; Steven M Greenberg; James N Huang; R Loch MacDonald; Steven R Messé; Pamela H Mitchell; Magdy Selim; Rafael J Tamargo Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-07-22 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: P M Vespa; K O'Phelan; M Shah; J Mirabelli; S Starkman; C Kidwell; J Saver; M R Nuwer; J G Frazee; D A McArthur; N A Martin Journal: Neurology Date: 2003-05-13 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Matthew B Maas; Neil F Rosenberg; Adam R Kosteva; Rebecca M Bauer; James C Guth; Eric M Liotta; Shyam Prabhakaran; Andrew M Naidech Journal: Neurology Date: 2013-06-05 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Rajbeer S Sangha; Fan Z Caprio; Robert Askew; Carlos Corado; Richard Bernstein; Yvonne Curran; Ilana Ruff; David Cella; Andrew M Naidech; Shyam Prabhakaran Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-11-04 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: D Cella; J-S Lai; C J Nowinski; D Victorson; A Peterman; D Miller; F Bethoux; A Heinemann; S Rubin; J E Cavazos; A T Reder; R Sufit; T Simuni; G L Holmes; A Siderowf; V Wojna; R Bode; N McKinney; T Podrabsky; K Wortman; S Choi; R Gershon; N Rothrock; C Moy Journal: Neurology Date: 2012-05-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Andrew M Naidech; Bradley Weaver; Matthew Maas; Thomas P Bleck; Stephen VanHaerents; Stephan U Schuele Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 9.296