ArticleNeurocritical care2017
The Safety and Effectiveness of Intravenous Lacosamide for Refractory Status Epilepticus in the Critically Ill.
Article in Neurocritical care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Guidance for: The acute management of status epilepticus in adult patients.Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2025Article
- Intravenous lacosamide for acute repetitive seizures and convulsive status epilepticus in critically ill children.Epilepsia open · 2024Article
- Observational
- Twitter Journal Club Impact on Engagement Metrics of the Neurocritical Care Journal.Neurocritical care · 2022Article
- Treatment of Refractory Convulsive Status Epilepticus: A Comprehensive Review by the American Epilepsy Society Treatments Committee.Epilepsy currents · 2020Article
- Antiseizure medications in critical care: an update.Current opinion in critical care · 2019Review
- Safety and Efficiency of Intravenous Push Lacosamide Administration.Neurocritical care · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStatus epilepticus (SE) often does not respond to initial treatment. A second-line agent with a less established safety and efficacy profile is then required. This study examined the safety of intravenous (IV) lacosamide (LCM) in a critically ill population and obtained an estimate of effectiveness in patients with refractory SE on continuous video EEG monitoring (cEEG).
methodsRetrospective review of critically ill patients in SE on cEEG treated with IV LCM from June 2009 to April 2011.
resultsEighty-four patients in SE (43 F/41 M), mean age 59.6 years, were identified; and 59.5 % had nonconvulsive SE. The most common etiologies were ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes. There were no significant changes in serial blood pressure monitoring, PR prolongation, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), or creatinine pre- and post-LCM. There was a significant increase in alanine aminotransferase (ALT) from days 1-7 (p = 0.031). Fifty-one patients were LCM-naïve. In these patients, cessation of SE on cEEG after LCM occurred in 15.7, 25.5, 58.8, and 82.4 % by 4, 12, 24, and 48 h, respectively.
conclusionIV LCM appears safe short term in critically ill patients with SE. The retrospective estimate of effectiveness for LCM appears promising for management in SE. Prospective, randomized controlled studies are needed to better determine the role of LCM in treating SE.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.