Treatment of benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus: A retrospective, cohort study.

Introduction: Status epilepticus (SE) is a frequent neurological emergency, derived from the failure of mechanisms responsible for seizure termination. The present study aims to compare the efficacy of the most common antiseizure medications (ASMs) employed for the treatment of benzodiazepine-refractory SE.
Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all SE episodes treated in our hospital between January 2016 and December 2020. Inclusion criteria were: age ≥ 18 years; a diagnosis of status epilepticus. Exclusion criteria were: status epilepticus resolved by initial therapy with benzodiazepines; impossibility to retrieve medical records. We considered as effective the ASM that was the last drug introduced or increased in dose before termination of SE and without changes in the co-medication.
Results: A total of 244 episodes in 219 patients were included in the study. The mean age of the final study cohort was 63.6 ± 19.2, with 108 (49%) men. In the total cohort, phenytoin (PHT) showed the highest response rate (57.6%), followed by lacosamide (LCM) (40.7%) and valproate (VPA) (39.8%). The comparative efficacy among the different drugs was significantly different (p < 0.001). In the pairwise comparisons, VPA was superior to levetiracetam (LEV) (response rate: 39.75% vs 24.71%; p = 0.004), but not to LCM. Phenytoin had a significantly higher resolution rate compared to VPA (response rate: 57.63% vs 39.75%; p = 0.02) and LEV (response rate: 57.63% vs 24.71; p < 0.001). The clinical predictors of anaesthetics administration were a disorder of consciousness upon clinical presentation, previous diagnosis of epilepsy, and younger age.
Conclusion: In our cohort of SE, PHT showed higher effectiveness in terminating established SE, as well as refractory SE in the subgroup of patients treated with anaesthetics.
Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)