K Erin Davidson1, Joshua Newell2, Khalid Alsherbini1,3, Joseph Krushinski1, G Morgan Jones4,5,6. 1. Methodist University Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA. 2. Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Translational Science, University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, Memphis, TN, USA. 3. Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, Memphis, TN, USA. 4. Methodist University Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA. morgan.jones@mlh.org. 5. Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Translational Science, University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, Memphis, TN, USA. morgan.jones@mlh.org. 6. Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, Memphis, TN, USA. morgan.jones@mlh.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVE: Intravenous (IV) lacosamide use for status epilepticus has increased in recent years and is recommended for refractory status epilepticus by current guidelines. Per the lacosamide package labeling, the preferred route of administration is diluted and infused over 30-60 min; however, administration undiluted is also acceptable and recent literature demonstrated safety at a maximum rate of 80 mg per minute (Kellinghaus et al. in Acta Neurol Scand 123:137-141, 2011). Undiluted administration as an IV push has potential to increase efficiency of administration to patients needing urgent seizure control since it may be dispensed from automatic dispensing cabinets in patient care areas. This study aims to compare safety outcomes and efficiency of administration in patients receiving lacosamide IV push compared to IV piggyback. METHODS: We present a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients receiving lacosamide via IV piggyback or IV push from June 2016 to July 2017. Baseline characteristics, data related to potential safety concerns and timing of ordering, verification, and administration were collected. The primary safety outcomes were incidence of infusion site reactions, hypotension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] < 90 mm Hg), and bradycardia (heart rate [HR] < 50 beats per minute) documented within 2 h of each lacosamide dose. Secondary safety outcomes included the incidence of PR interval prolongation in patients with at least one electrocardiogram measured. The primary efficiency outcome was the time between order verification and administration. RESULTS: Patients in the IV piggyback (n = 88) and IV push (n = 78) groups had similar baseline characteristics, initial dose, SBP, and HR. Hypotension (8 vs. 10.3%) and bradycardia (2.3 vs. 2.6%) rates were similar among both groups (p > 0.05). Only one patient in each group had documented PR prolongation, and no documented infusion reactions occurred. Median time from order verification to administration was significantly reduced in the IV push group (35 min vs. 1 h 49 min; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of lacosamide via IV push results in similar adverse effect rates to IV piggyback preparations with more efficient time to administration.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVE: Intravenous (IV) lacosamide use for status epilepticus has increased in recent years and is recommended for refractory status epilepticus by current guidelines. Per the lacosamide package labeling, the preferred route of administration is diluted and infused over 30-60 min; however, administration undiluted is also acceptable and recent literature demonstrated safety at a maximum rate of 80 mg per minute (Kellinghaus et al. in Acta Neurol Scand 123:137-141, 2011). Undiluted administration as an IV push has potential to increase efficiency of administration to patients needing urgent seizure control since it may be dispensed from automatic dispensing cabinets in patient care areas. This study aims to compare safety outcomes and efficiency of administration in patients receiving lacosamide IV push compared to IV piggyback. METHODS: We present a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients receiving lacosamide via IV piggyback or IV push from June 2016 to July 2017. Baseline characteristics, data related to potential safety concerns and timing of ordering, verification, and administration were collected. The primary safety outcomes were incidence of infusion site reactions, hypotension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] < 90 mm Hg), and bradycardia (heart rate [HR] < 50 beats per minute) documented within 2 h of each lacosamide dose. Secondary safety outcomes included the incidence of PR interval prolongation in patients with at least one electrocardiogram measured. The primary efficiency outcome was the time between order verification and administration. RESULTS:Patients in the IV piggyback (n = 88) and IV push (n = 78) groups had similar baseline characteristics, initial dose, SBP, and HR. Hypotension (8 vs. 10.3%) and bradycardia (2.3 vs. 2.6%) rates were similar among both groups (p > 0.05). Only one patient in each group had documented PR prolongation, and no documented infusion reactions occurred. Median time from order verification to administration was significantly reduced in the IV push group (35 min vs. 1 h 49 min; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of lacosamide via IV push results in similar adverse effect rates to IV piggyback preparations with more efficient time to administration.
Authors: C Kellinghaus; S Berning; I Immisch; J Larch; F Rosenow; A O Rossetti; C Tilz; E Trinka Journal: Acta Neurol Scand Date: 2010-09-26 Impact factor: 3.209
Authors: Gretchen M Brophy; Rodney Bell; Jan Claassen; Brian Alldredge; Thomas P Bleck; Tracy Glauser; Suzette M Laroche; James J Riviello; Lori Shutter; Michael R Sperling; David M Treiman; Paul M Vespa Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 3.210