Article

Intramuscular versus intravenous therapy for prehospital status epilepticus.

Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, USA.
New England Journal of Medicine (Impact Factor: 54.42). 02/2012; 366(7):591-600. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1107494
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Early termination of prolonged seizures with intravenous administration of benzodiazepines improves outcomes. For faster and more reliable administration, paramedics increasingly use an intramuscular route.
This double-blind, randomized, noninferiority trial compared the efficacy of intramuscular midazolam with that of intravenous lorazepam for children and adults in status epilepticus treated by paramedics. Subjects whose convulsions had persisted for more than 5 minutes and who were still convulsing after paramedics arrived were given the study medication by either intramuscular autoinjector or intravenous infusion. The primary outcome was absence of seizures at the time of arrival in the emergency department without the need for rescue therapy. Secondary outcomes included endotracheal intubation, recurrent seizures, and timing of treatment relative to the cessation of convulsive seizures. This trial tested the hypothesis that intramuscular midazolam was noninferior to intravenous lorazepam by a margin of 10 percentage points.
At the time of arrival in the emergency department, seizures were absent without rescue therapy in 329 of 448 subjects (73.4%) in the intramuscular-midazolam group and in 282 of 445 (63.4%) in the intravenous-lorazepam group (absolute difference, 10 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 4.0 to 16.1; P<0.001 for both noninferiority and superiority). The two treatment groups were similar with respect to need for endotracheal intubation (14.1% of subjects with intramuscular midazolam and 14.4% with intravenous lorazepam) and recurrence of seizures (11.4% and 10.6%, respectively). Among subjects whose seizures ceased before arrival in the emergency department, the median times to active treatment were 1.2 minutes in the intramuscular-midazolam group and 4.8 minutes in the intravenous-lorazepam group, with corresponding median times from active treatment to cessation of convulsions of 3.3 minutes and 1.6 minutes. Adverse-event rates were similar in the two groups.
For subjects in status epilepticus, intramuscular midazolam is at least as safe and effective as intravenous lorazepam for prehospital seizure cessation. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00809146.).

Full-text

Available from: Valerie Durkalski, Apr 18, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
136 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: Convulsive status epilepticus (SE) is one of the most frequent and severe neurological emergencies in both adults and children. A timely administration of appropriate antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) can stop seizures early and markedly improve outcome. Areas covered: The main treatment strategies for SE are reviewed with an emphasis on initial treatments. The established first-line treatment consists of benzodiazepines, most frequently intravenous lorazepam. Benzodiazepines that do not require intravenous administration like intranasal midazolam or intramuscular midazolam are becoming more popular because of easier administration in the field. Other benzodiazepines may also be effective. After treatment with benzodiazepines, treatment with fosphenytoin and phenobarbital is usually recommended. Other intravenously available AEDs, such as valproate and levetiracetam, may be as effective and safe as fosphenytoin and phenobarbital, have a faster infusion time and better pharmacokinetic profile. The rationale behind the need for an early treatment of SE is discussed. The real-time delays of AED administration in clinical practice are described. Expert opinion: There is limited evidence to support what the best initial benzodiazepine or the best non-benzodiazepine AED is. Recent and developing multicenter trials are evaluating the best treatment options and will likely modify the recommended treatment choices in SE in the near future. Additionally, more research is needed to understand how different treatment options modify prognosis in SE. Timely implementation of care protocols to minimize treatment delays is crucial.
    Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy 01/2015; DOI:10.1517/14656566.2015.997212 · 3.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prompt treatment of status epilepticus (SE) is associated with better outcomes. Rectal diazepam (DZP) and nonintravenous (non-IV) midazolam (MDZ) are often used in the treatment of early SE instead of intravenous applications. The aim of this review was to determine if nonintravenous MDZ is as effective and safe as intravenous or rectal DZP in terminating early SE seizures in children and adults. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials.gov, and MEDLINE for randomized controlled trials comparing non-IV MDZ with DZP (by any route) in patients (all ages) with early SE defined either as seizures lasting >5min or as seizures at arrival in the emergency department. The following outcomes were assessed: clinical seizure cessation within 15min of drug administration, serious adverse effects, time interval to drug administration, and time from arrival in the emergency department to seizure cessation. Outcomes were assessed using a random-effects Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis to calculate risk ratio (RR), odds ratio (OR) and mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Nineteen studies with 1933 seizures in 1602 patients (some trials included patients with more than one seizure) were included. One thousand five hundred seventy-three patients were younger than 16years. For seizure cessation, non-IV MDZ was as effective as DZP (any route) (1933 seizures; RR: 1.03; 95% CIs: 0.98 to 1.08). No difference in adverse effects was found between non-IM MDZ and DZP by any route (1933 seizures; RR: 0.87; 95% CIs: 0.50 to 1.50). Time interval between arrival and seizure cessation was significantly shorter with non-IV MDZ by any route than with DZP by any route (338 seizures; mean difference: -3.67min; 95% CIs: -5.98 to -1.36); a similar result was found for time from arrival to drug administration (348 seizures; mean difference: -3.56min; 95% CIs: -5.00 to -2.11). A minimal difference was found for time interval from drug administration to clinical seizure cessation, which was shorter for DZP by any route than for non-IV MDZ by any route (812 seizures; mean difference: 0.56min; 95% CIs: 0.15 to 0.98min). Not all studies reported information on time intervals. Comparison by each way of administration failed to find a significant difference in terms of clinical seizure cessation and occurrence of adverse effects. The only exception was the comparison between buccal MDZ and rectal DZP, where MDZ was more effective than rectal DZP in terminating SE but only when results were expressed as OR (769 seizures; OR: 1.78; 95% CIs: 1.11 to 2.85; RR: 1.15; 95% CIs: 0.85 to 1.54). Only one study was entirely conducted in an adult population (21 patients, aged 31 to 69years), showing no difference in efficacy or time to seizure cessation after drug administration between intranasal MDZ and rectal DZP. Non-IV MDZ is as effective and safe as intravenous or rectal DZP in terminating early SE in children and probably also in adults. Times from arrival in the emergency department to drug administration and to seizure cessation are shorter with non-IV MDZ than with intravenous or rectal DZP, but this does not necessarily result in higher seizure control. An exception may be the buccal MDZ, which, besides being socially more acceptable and easier to administer, might also have a higher efficacy than rectal DZP in seizure control. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled Status Epilepticus. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Epilepsy & Behavior 03/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.yebeh.2015.02.030 · 2.06 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Status epilepticus has a wide etiological spectrum, and significant morbidity and mortality. Management using a pre-determined uniform protocol leads to better outcomes. Multiple protocols for management of childhood status epilepticus are available, without much consensus. PROCESS: A 'Multi-disciplinary Consensus Development Workshop on Management of Status Epilepticus in Children in India' was organized. The invited experts included Pediatricians, Pediatric neurologists, Neurologists, Epileptologists, and Pediatric intensive care specialists from India, with experience in the relevant field. Experts had previously been divided into focus groups and had interacted on telephone and e-mail regarding their group recommendations, and developed consensus on the topic. During the meeting, each group presented their recommendations, which were deliberated upon by the house and a consensus was reached on various issues; the document was finalized after incorporating suggestions of experts on the draft document. OBJECTIVE: To provide consensus guidelines on evaluation and management of convulsive status epilepticus in children in India (excluding neonatal and super-refractory status epilepticus). RECOMMENDATIONS: Each institution should use a pre-determined protocol for management of status epilepticus; pre-hospital management and early stabilization is the key to a satisfactory outcome of status epilepticus. Pharmacotherapy should not be delayed for any investigations; the initial management should consist of a parenteral benzodiazepine by any route feasible. Subsequent management has been detailed. The group also felt the need for more epidemiological research on status epilepticus from India, and identified certain research areas for the purpose