France W Fung1,2, Marin Jacobwitz1, Lisa Vala3, Darshana Parikh1,4, Maureen Donnelly3, Rui Xiao5, Alexis A Topjian4,6, Nicholas S Abend1,2,3,5,6. 1. Department of Pediatrics (Division of Neurology), Children's Hospital of Philadelphia,, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 2. Departments of Neurology and Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. Department of Neurodiagnostics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia,, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 5. Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 6. Department of Anesthesia & Critical Care, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Guidelines recommend that encephalopathic critically ill children undergo continuous electroencephalographic (CEEG) monitoring for electrographic seizure (ES) identification and management. However, limited data exist on antiseizure medication (ASM) safety for ES treatment in critically ill children. METHODS: We performed a single-center prospective observational study of encephalopathic critically ill children undergoing CEEG. Clinical and EEG features and ASM utilization patterns were evaluated. We determined the incidence, types, and risk factors for adverse events associated with ASM administration. RESULTS: A total of 472 consecutive critically ill children undergoing CEEG were enrolled. ES occurred in 131 children (28%). Clinicians administered ASM to 108 children with ES (82%). ES terminated after the initial ASM in 38% of patients who received one ASM, after the second ASM in 35% of patients who received two ASMs, after the third ASM in 50% of patients who received three ASMs, and after the fourth ASM in 53% of patients who received four ASMs. Thirty patients (28%) received anesthetic infusions for ES management. Adverse events occurred in 18 patients (17%). Adverse effects were expected and resolved in all patients, and they were generally serious (in 15 patients) and definitely related (in 12 patients). Adverse events were rare in patients with acute symptomatic seizures requiring only one to two ASMs for treatment, but were more common in children with epilepsy, ictal-interictal continuum EEG patterns, or patients requiring more extensive ASM management. SIGNIFICANCE: ES ceased after one ASM in only 38% of critically ill children but ceased after two ASMs in 73% of critically ill children. Thus, ES management was often accomplished with readily available medications, but optimization of multistep ES management strategies might be beneficial. Adverse events were rare and manageable in children with acute symptomatic seizures requiring only one to two ASMs for treatment. Future studies are needed to determine whether management of acute symptomatic ES improves neurobehavioral outcomes. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
OBJECTIVE: Guidelines recommend that encephalopathic critically illchildren undergo continuous electroencephalographic (CEEG) monitoring for electrographic seizure (ES) identification and management. However, limited data exist on antiseizure medication (ASM) safety for ES treatment in critically illchildren. METHODS: We performed a single-center prospective observational study of encephalopathic critically illchildren undergoing CEEG. Clinical and EEG features and ASM utilization patterns were evaluated. We determined the incidence, types, and risk factors for adverse events associated with ASM administration. RESULTS: A total of 472 consecutive critically illchildren undergoing CEEG were enrolled. ES occurred in 131 children (28%). Clinicians administered ASM to 108 children with ES (82%). ES terminated after the initial ASM in 38% of patients who received one ASM, after the second ASM in 35% of patients who received two ASMs, after the third ASM in 50% of patients who received three ASMs, and after the fourth ASM in 53% of patients who received four ASMs. Thirty patients (28%) received anesthetic infusions for ES management. Adverse events occurred in 18 patients (17%). Adverse effects were expected and resolved in all patients, and they were generally serious (in 15 patients) and definitely related (in 12 patients). Adverse events were rare in patients with acute symptomatic seizures requiring only one to two ASMs for treatment, but were more common in children with epilepsy, ictal-interictal continuum EEG patterns, or patients requiring more extensive ASM management. SIGNIFICANCE: ES ceased after one ASM in only 38% of critically illchildren but ceased after two ASMs in 73% of critically illchildren. Thus, ES management was often accomplished with readily available medications, but optimization of multistep ES management strategies might be beneficial. Adverse events were rare and manageable in children with acute symptomatic seizures requiring only one to two ASMs for treatment. Future studies are needed to determine whether management of acute symptomatic ES improves neurobehavioral outcomes. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Authors: Nicholas S Abend; Katherine L Wagenman; Taylor P Blake; Maria T Schultheis; Jerilynn Radcliffe; Robert A Berg; Alexis A Topjian; Dennis J Dlugos Journal: Epilepsy Behav Date: 2015-04-20 Impact factor: 2.937
Authors: Tracy Glauser; Shlomo Shinnar; David Gloss; Brian Alldredge; Ravindra Arya; Jacquelyn Bainbridge; Mary Bare; Thomas Bleck; W Edwin Dodson; Lisa Garrity; Andy Jagoda; Daniel Lowenstein; John Pellock; James Riviello; Edward Sloan; David M Treiman Journal: Epilepsy Curr Date: 2016 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 7.500
Authors: L J Hirsch; S M LaRoche; N Gaspard; E Gerard; A Svoronos; S T Herman; R Mani; H Arif; N Jette; Y Minazad; J F Kerrigan; P Vespa; S Hantus; J Claassen; G B Young; E So; P W Kaplan; M R Nuwer; N B Fountain; F W Drislane Journal: J Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 2.177
Authors: Nicholas S Abend; Ana Gutierrez-Colina; Huaqing Zhao; Rong Guo; Eric Marsh; Robert R Clancy; Dennis J Dlugos Journal: J Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 2.177
Authors: Stuart R Dalziel; Meredith L Borland; Jeremy Furyk; Megan Bonisch; Jocelyn Neutze; Susan Donath; Kate L Francis; Cynthia Sharpe; A Simon Harvey; Andrew Davidson; Simon Craig; Natalie Phillips; Shane George; Arjun Rao; Nicholas Cheng; Michael Zhang; Amit Kochar; Christine Brabyn; Ed Oakley; Franz E Babl Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-04-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Fenella J Kirkham; Angela M Wade; Fiona McElduff; Stewart G Boyd; Robert C Tasker; Melinda Edwards; Brian G R Neville; Norbert Peshu; Charles R J C Newton Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-04-11 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: France W Fung; Jiaxin Fan; Lisa Vala; Marin Jacobwitz; Darshana S Parikh; Maureen Donnelly; Alexis A Topjian; Rui Xiao; Nicholas S Abend Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-07-20 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: France W Fung; Jiaxin Fan; Darshana S Parikh; Lisa Vala; Maureen Donnelly; Marin Jacobwitz; Alexis A Topjian; Rui Xiao; Nicholas S Abend Journal: J Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 2.590
Authors: Jian Hu; France W Fung; Marin Jacobwitz; Darshana S Parikh; Lisa Vala; Maureen Donnelly; Alexis A Topjian; Nicholas S Abend; Rui Xiao Journal: Seizure Date: 2021-03-04 Impact factor: 3.184
Authors: France W Fung; Zi Wang; Darshana S Parikh; Marin Jacobwitz; Lisa Vala; Maureen Donnelly; Alexis A Topjian; Rui Xiao; Nicholas S Abend Journal: Neurology Date: 2021-04-23 Impact factor: 11.800