ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024
Efficacy and safety of alfaxalone compared to propofol in canine refractory status epilepticus: a pilot study.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Refractory status epilepticus (RSE) is defined as seizure activity that is minimally responsive to first- or second-line antiseizure medications. Constant rate infusion (CRI) intravenous propofol (PPF) is commonly used to treat RSE in dogs and cats. The antiseizure activity of alfaxalone (ALF) in RSE has been demonstrated in various experimental studies. This study compared the clinical efficacy and safety of intramuscular administration followed by CRI infusion of ALF with intravenous administration followed by CRI infusion of PPF to treat canine RSE. Materials and methods: This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized clinical trial of client-owned dogs referred for status epilepticus that did not respond to first- and second-line drugs. Animals with suspected or confirmed idiopathic or structural epilepsy were included. The dogs were randomly assigned to either the PPF or ALF treatment groups and each group received drug CRI infusions for 6 h. Drug dosages were progressively reduced by 25% every hour from the third hour until suspension after 6 h. Patients were classified as responders or non-responders based on the relapse of epileptic seizures during the 24 h therapy infusion or within 24 h of drug suspension. Univariate statistical analyses were performed. Results: Twenty dogs were enrolled in the study. Ten (10/20) dogs were randomly allocated to the PPF group and 10 (10/20) to the ALF group. Successful outcomes were obtained in six (6/10) patients in the PPF group and five (5/10) patients in the ALF group. Adverse effects were recorded in six (6/10) and three (3/10) animals in the PPF and ALF groups, respectively. No statistically significant differences in outcomes or the presence of adverse effects were observed between the groups. Discussion: The results of this preliminary study suggest that ALF can be considered a valid and safe alternative to PPF for the treatment of RSE in dogs, with the additional advantage of intramuscular administration. However, caution should be exercised when using these drugs to provide airway and hemodynamic support.
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.