Literature DB >> 30918093

Untangling operational failures of the Status Epilepticus Severity Score (STESS).

Raoul Sutter1, Saskia Semmlack2, Petra Opić2, Rainer Spiegel2, Gian Marco De Marchis2, Sabina Hunziker2, Peter W Kaplan2, Stephan Rüegg2, Stephan Marsch2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To uncover clinical characteristics leading to false outcome prediction of the Status Epilepticus Severity Score (STESS), a validated and broadly used clinical scoring system for outcome prediction in status epilepticus (SE).
METHODS: From 2005 to 2016, adult patients with SE treated at the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland, were included. To assess independent associations of variables differing between patients with false and correct prediction of death (STESS ≥ 3), multivariable logistic regression models were computed using automated selection.
RESULTS: Among 467 patients, 12% died. The median STESS was 3 (interquartile range 2-4). Regarding prediction of death, the STESS was false-positive in 51% and false-negative in 1%. Patients surviving despite having a STESS ≥3 had less fatal etiologies, less nonconvulsive SE with coma, and lower Charlson Comorbidity Index, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores. In multivariable analyses, odds for survival were high with SE types other than nonconvulsive status with coma and low with an increasing Charlson Comorbidity Index in patients with a STESS ≥ 3 (odds ratio [OR]for survival 4.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.33-9.60; and ORfor survival 0.86, 95% CI 0.75-0.98). In patients with SE types other than nonconvulsive with coma, the STESS was mainly increased because they were frequently older than 65 years and had no seizure history.
CONCLUSIONS: The STESS frequently and inadequately predicts death especially in patients with SE other than nonconvulsive with coma and few comorbidities. Clinicians are urged to interpret a STESS ≥3 with caution in such patients.
© 2019 American Academy of Neurology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30918093     DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000007365

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurology        ISSN: 0028-3878            Impact factor:   9.910


  4 in total

Review 1.  Status epilepticus - time is brain and treatment considerations.

Authors:  Caroline Der-Nigoghossian; Clio Rubinos; Ayham Alkhachroum; Jan Claassen
Journal:  Curr Opin Crit Care       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 3.687

Review 2.  A Theoretical Paradigm for Evaluating Risk-Benefit of Status Epilepticus Treatment.

Authors:  Edilberto Amorim; Chris M McGraw; M Brandon Westover
Journal:  J Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 2.590

Review 3.  [S2k guidelines: status epilepticus in adulthood : Guidelines of the German Society for Neurology].

Authors:  F Rosenow; J Weber
Journal:  Nervenarzt       Date:  2021-03-22       Impact factor: 1.214

Review 4.  [Pharmacotherapy and intensive care aspects of status epilepticus: update 2020/2021].

Authors:  Gabrielė Saitov; Annekatrin Müller; Börge Bastian; Dominik Michalski
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 1.041

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.