ArticleNeurocritical care2018
Safety and Efficiency of Intravenous Push Lacosamide Administration.
Article in Neurocritical care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intravenous Perampanel as an Interchangeable Alternative to Oral Perampanel: A Randomized, Crossover, Phase I Pharmacokinetic and Safety Study.Clinical pharmacology in drug development · 2022Trial
- Appropriateness of intravenous fluid prescriptions in hospitalised patients: a point prevalence study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Identification of potentially causative drugs associated with hypotension: A scoping review.Archiv der Pharmazie · 2025Article
- Article
- Intravenous push administration of anti-seizure medications.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Review
- Evaluation of Cardiovascular Concerns of Intravenous Lacosamide Therapy in Epilepsy Patients.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Article
- Anticonvulsant Effects of Topiramate and Lacosamide on Pilocarpine-Induced Status Epilepticus in Rats: A Role of Reactive Oxygen Species and Inflammation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Lacosamide-associated second-degree atrioventricular block in a healthy, young athlete.Epilepsy & behavior reports · 2020Article
- Antiseizure medications in critical care: an update.Current opinion in critical care · 2019Review
- [Guidelines for the management of adverse effects of anti-seizure medications (2023)].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatricsArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectiveIntravenous (IV) lacosamide use for status epilepticus has increased in recent years and is recommended for refractory status epilepticus by current guidelines. Per the lacosamide package labeling, the preferred route of administration is diluted and infused over 30-60 min; however, administration undiluted is also acceptable and recent literature demonstrated safety at a maximum rate of 80 mg per minute (Kellinghaus et al. in Acta Neurol Scand 123:137-141, 2011). Undiluted administration as an IV push has potential to increase efficiency of administration to patients needing urgent seizure control since it may be dispensed from automatic dispensing cabinets in patient care areas. This study aims to compare safety outcomes and efficiency of administration in patients receiving lacosamide IV push compared to IV piggyback.
methodsWe present a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients receiving lacosamide via IV piggyback or IV push from June 2016 to July 2017. Baseline characteristics, data related to potential safety concerns and timing of ordering, verification, and administration were collected. The primary safety outcomes were incidence of infusion site reactions, hypotension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] < 90 mm Hg), and bradycardia (heart rate [HR] < 50 beats per minute) documented within 2 h of each lacosamide dose. Secondary safety outcomes included the incidence of PR interval prolongation in patients with at least one electrocardiogram measured. The primary efficiency outcome was the time between order verification and administration.
resultsPatients in the IV piggyback (n = 88) and IV push (n = 78) groups had similar baseline characteristics, initial dose, SBP, and HR. Hypotension (8 vs. 10.3%) and bradycardia (2.3 vs. 2.6%) rates were similar among both groups (p > 0.05). Only one patient in each group had documented PR prolongation, and no documented infusion reactions occurred. Median time from order verification to administration was significantly reduced in the IV push group (35 min vs. 1 h 49 min; p < 0.001).
conclusionsAdministration of lacosamide via IV push results in similar adverse effect rates to IV piggyback preparations with more efficient time to administration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29949010What 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.