Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30259177›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurology2018

Acute antiepileptic drug use in intensive care units.

Bernd J Vorderwülbecke, Gregor Lichtner, Falk von Dincklage, Martin Holtkamp

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bernd J VorderwülbeckeDepartment of Neurology, Epilepsy-Center Berlin-Brandenburg, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. bernd.vorderwuelbecke@charite.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0528-4001
Gregor LichtnerDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Falk von DincklageDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Martin HoltkampDepartment of Neurology, Epilepsy-Center Berlin-Brandenburg, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn intensive care units (ICUs), antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are used for manifold indications. This is the first study to assess the prevalence of acute AED use in ICUs and to identify associated clinical variables.

methodsAll patients in seven adult ICUs of a German university hospital in 2016 were retrospectively evaluated. Data were extracted from the computerized critical care information system and manually reviewed. Acute AED treatments were defined as initiated during ICU treatment or ≤ 6 h before ICU admission, excluding benzodiazepines and sedatives.

resultsAmong 2335 patients evaluated, 8.8% received acutely started AEDs: 5.1% due to epileptic seizures, mostly acute symptomatic, and 3.7% for other indications like pain, post-hypoxic myoclonus, and singultus. Following multivariable analyses, acute AED use was independently associated with intracranial reasons for ICU admission and long durations of ICU stay, but not with increased disease severity scores or mortality. Levetiracetam was the substance most frequently used to treat epileptic seizures (88%) as was pregabalin for other conditions (49%). Among surviving patients, acute AEDs were continued beyond ICU discharge in 86% if seizure-related and in 78% if not seizure-related, even if there was no evident need for long-term AED treatment.

conclusionsOne out of eleven ICU patients receives acute AEDs, in almost half of cases for non-seizure indications. Acute AED use is a marker for intracranial ICU indications and prolonged ICU treatments. Usually, newer-generation AEDs are employed with favourable pharmacokinetic and safety profiles. However, whenever possible, acutely started AED should be discontinued before discharge from ICU.

Indexed as

Critical CareIntensive Care UnitsAgedAnticonvulsantsFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSeizuresAnticonvulsantsAnticonvulsantsCritical careLevetiracetamPregabalinSeizures

Identifiers

PMID30259177
OpenAlexW2894050006

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.