Lessons from the RAMPART study???and which is the best route of administration of benzodiazepines in status epilepticus
ABSTRACT Early treatment of prolonged seizures with benzodiazepines given intravenously by paramedics in the prehospital setting had been shown to be associated with improved outcomes, but the comparative efficacy and safety of an intramuscular (IM) route, which is faster and consistently achievable, was previously unknown. RAMPART (the Rapid Anticonvulsant Medication Prior to Arrival Trial) was a double-blind randomized clinical trial to determine if the efficacy of intramuscular (IM) midazolam is noninferior by a margin of 10% to that of intravenous (IV) lorazepam in patients treated by paramedics for status epilepticus (SE). In children and adults with >5 min of convulsions and who are still seizing at paramedic arrival, midazolam administered by IM autoinjector was noninferior to IV lorazepam on the primary efficacy outcome with comparable safety. Patients treated with IM midazolam were more likely to have stopped seizing at emergency department (ED) arrival, without emergency medical services (EMS) rescue therapy, and were less likely to require any hospitalization or admission to an intensive care unit. Lessons from the RAMPART study's findings and potential implications on clinical practice, on the potential role of other routes of administration, on the effect of timing of interventions, and on future clinical trials are discussed.
- SourceAvailable from: Eugen Trinka
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- ", ys) 110 patients M/F: 64/46 (no. of episodes) 3       "
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; 49. DOI:10.1016/j.yebeh.2015.02.030 · 2.26 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: STXBP1 encephalopathy is associated with a range of movement disorders. We observed head stereotypies in three patients. These comprised a slow (<1Hz), high-amplitude, horizontal, 'figure-of-eight' pattern, beginning at age 4-6 years and resulting in neck muscle hypertrophy, in two males; a faster (2-3Hz), side-to-side, 'no' movement, starting at the age of 9 years 6 months was observed in one female. Upper limb and truncal stereotypies and vocalization occurred intermittently with the head movements. The stereotypies increased with excitement but settled with concentration and sleep. Head and upper limb stereotypies are valuable clinical clues to the diagnosis of STXBP1 encephalopathy in patients with profound impairments.Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 06/2013; 55(8). DOI:10.1111/dmcn.12197 · 3.51 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Skin offers easy access, convenience and non-invasiveness for drug delivery and diagnosis. In principle, these advantages of skin appear to be attractive for critically ill patients given potential difficulties that may be associated with oral and parenteral access in these patients. However, the profound changes in skin physiology that can be seen in these patients provide a challenge to reliably deliver drugs or provide diagnostic information. Drug delivery through skin may be used to manage burn injury, wounds, infection, trauma and the multisystem complications that rise from these conditions. Local anaesthetics and analgesics can be delivered through skin and may have wide application in critically ill patients. To ensure accurate information, diagnostic tools require validation in the critically ill patient population as information from other patient populations may not be applicable.Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 10/2014; 77. DOI:10.1016/j.addr.2014.10.004 · 15.04 Impact Factor