GuidelineNeurocritical care2026
Guidelines for Seizure Prophylaxis in Patients with Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society.
Guideline in Neurocritical care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are limited data to guide antiseizure medication (ASM) prophylaxis in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). This results in practice variation in the use and duration of ASM prophylaxis.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of articles assessing ASM prophylaxis in adults with aneurysmal SAH. The population, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) questions were as follows: (1) Should ASM or no ASM be used in patients hospitalized for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage who have no history of clinical or electrographic seizures? (2) If an ASM is used, should levetiracetam or phenytoin/fosphenytoin be preferentially used? (3) If an ASM is used, should a long (> 3 days) or short (≤ 3 days) duration of prophylaxis be used? The main outcomes were early seizure (≤ 14 days), late seizures (> 14 days), adverse events, mortality, and functional outcomes. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to generate recommendations.
resultsThe initial literature search yielded 1988 articles, of which 10 formed the basis of the recommendations: Regarding PICO 1, we did not find a significant difference in outcomes of early seizure, adverse events, mortality, or functional outcomes when comparing ASM to no ASM. In regard to PICO 2, we found fewer early seizures with phenytoin/fosphenytoin and lower risk for neurologic decline with levetiracetam; however, there was low certainty of evidence. There was no significant difference in mortality between the different treatment types. Regarding PICO 3, we found extended use of ASM may be associated with lower seizure risk, but at the same time be associated with higher risk for adverse effects.
conclusionsOverall, the quality of evidence is low, precluding strong recommendations. We suggest that ASM or no ASM may be used in patients hospitalized with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (conditional recommendation, low quality of evidence). If used, we suggest either levetiracetam or phenytoin/fosphenytoin (conditional recommendation, very low quality of evidence) for a short or long duration (conditional recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
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.