Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40917457›Full record

ArticleNeurology. Clinical practice2025

Super-Refractory Status Epilepticus Diagnosis, Management, and Prognostication: An International Survey Study.

Matthew Ryan Woodward, Jessica P Brown, Steven J Kittner, Neeraj Badjatia, Emily J Gilmore, Emily L Johnson, Nicholas A Morris

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurology. Clinical practice, 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. Review
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

7 authors.

Matthew Ryan WoodwardDepartment of Neurology, Division of Neurocritical Care and Emergency Neurology, Program in Trauma, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1749-4356
Jessica P BrownDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-5127-0199
Steven J KittnerDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8457-8744
Neeraj BadjatiaDepartment of Neurology, Division of Neurocritical Care and Emergency Neurology, Program in Trauma, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1509-9034
Emily J GilmoreDepartment of Neurology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT; and.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4659-6861
Emily L JohnsonDepartment of Neurology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6457-938X
Nicholas A MorrisDepartment of Neurology, Division of Neurocritical Care and Emergency Neurology, Program in Trauma, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1270-9805

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Guidelines for super-refractory status epilepticus (SRSE) evaluation, management, and prognostication are lacking. Characterization of practice patterns could identify trends and potential areas for future inquiry. We surveyed clinicians who manage SRSE to better understand practice approaches to SRSE evaluation, management, and prognostication. Methods: We conducted an international cross-sectional 66-question, web-based survey of clinicians who manage SRSE, distributed through 4 scientific societies from August 3, 2023, through January 25, 2024. We collected data regarding SRSE diagnostics and management. We examined prognostic approaches based on 2 clinical vignettes. We characterized responses using descriptive statistics and developed logistic regression models to identify key factors associated with prognostication. Results: Of 245 participants, 36 were excluded because of no clinical involvement with SRSE and 209 were included; 41 (20%), 66 (32%), and 84 (40%) participants were neurologists, neurointensivists, and general intensivists, respectively, 83% of whom practiced in the United States. For IV anesthetic treatment, midazolam (n = 47, 38%) and propofol (n = 42, 34%) were most often selected as first line while ketamine was most often 2nd (n = 34, 26%) or 3rd (n = 52, 41%) line. Regarding electroencephalography targets for IV treatment, burst suppression (n = 96, 47%) or seizure suppression (n = 70, 34%) was most popular. This goal was maintained for a median of 49.5 hours (interquartile range 29.8-74 hours) before weaning. Regarding prognostication, of 147 respondents, 75 (51%) reported an ability to predict favorable prognosis, which was associated with neurology (OR: 4.4, 95% CI 1.5-13.5) or general intensivist (OR: 4.6, 95% CI 1.6-14) practice vs neurocritical care (reference, fewer than 5 years of experience (OR: 3.9, 95% CI 1.6-10); higher annual SRSE case load (OR: 2.9, 95% CI 1.7-7.3); and use of clinical severity scores (OR: 4.7, 95% CI 2-11.4). Time to determine futility and recommendations for withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy (WLST) followed bimodal distributions, with early (0-4 weeks) and delayed (26 weeks) modes. Prognostic optimism was associated with delayed determination of futility and recommendation for WLST (OR: 6.2, 95% CI 2.2-19.3). Discussion: There is significant variability in the evaluation and management of SRSE, including treatment preferences, targets, and duration of therapy. Prognostication is associated with multiple clinician-related factors. The timing of prognostication is highly variable and is associated with clinician optimism.

Identifiers

PMID40917457
PMCPMC12413177

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.