Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40259980›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025

Intubation in propofol-treated status epilepticus: a cohort study.

Maya Mikutra-Cencora, Jeanne Teitelbaum

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Maya Mikutra-CencoraFaculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Jeanne TeitelbaumMontreal Neurological Institute, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The management of status epilepticus (SE) often includes endotracheal intubation with mechanical ventilation to address respiratory depression, especially in patients treated with third-line anesthetic agents such as propofol. At our center we use sub-anesthetic propofol as a first line anti-epileptic for SE without intubation. We aimed to assess the performance of our treatment algorithm and to determine whether intubation in these patients improves outcomes. Methods: All adult patients with SE treated with propofol at a tertiary neuro-intensive care unit from 2015 to 2022 were identified through medical records. Survival without new neurological deficits at discharge was the primary outcome; secondary outcomes were the development of common complications. Descriptive statistics were used to assess general outcomes, and multi-variable logistic regressions were performed to compare outcomes between patients who were intubated while on propofol and those who were not, as well as to compare outcomes according to number of days kept intubated after cessation of propofol. Results: We identified 162 SE patients treated with low-dose propofol, of which 44 (17%) were not intubated and 118 (83%) were. Our cohort's survival rate was 85%, and survival without new deficits was 42%. Intubation was not associated with improved survival without new neurological deficits (OR = 1.34, 95% CI 0.372-4.831, Conclusion: This study offers encouraging evidence that early sub-anesthetic propofol is a safe and efficient alternative to existing treatment approaches in selected patients. These patients do not require intubation: intubation fails to significantly improve outcomes, and prolonging intubation past cessation of propofol worsens outcomes. These data raise doubts as to the benefits of endotracheal intubation in SE and stress the need to limit the duration of this invasive measure.

Indexed as

cohort studyendotracheal intubationpropofolseizurestatus epilepticus

Identifiers

PMID40259980
PMCPMC12009926

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.