Seizure Prophylaxis in Young Patients Following Traumatic Brain Injury

IF 1.2 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock Pub Date : 2024-02-28 DOI:10.4103/jets.jets_93_23
A. Bahey, T. Chughtai, A. El-Menyar, Vishwajit Verma, G. Strandvik, Mohammad Asim, R. Consunji, Basil Younis, A. Parchani, Sandro Rizoli, H. Al-Thani
{"title":"Seizure Prophylaxis in Young Patients Following Traumatic Brain Injury","authors":"A. Bahey, T. Chughtai, A. El-Menyar, Vishwajit Verma, G. Strandvik, Mohammad Asim, R. Consunji, Basil Younis, A. Parchani, Sandro Rizoli, H. Al-Thani","doi":"10.4103/jets.jets_93_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n Phenytoin is one of the commonly used anti-seizure medications in nontraumatic seizures. However, its utility and safety in young patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) for the prevention of early-onset seizures (EOS) are debatable. We sought to explore the use of phenytoin as a seizure prophylaxis following TBI. We hypothesized that administering phenytoin is not effective in preventing EOS after TBI.\n \n \n \n This was a retrospective observational study conducted on adult TBI patients. EOS was defined as a witnessed seizure within a week postinjury. Data were compared as phenytoin versus no-phenytoin use, EOS versus no-EOS, and among TBI severity groups.\n \n \n \n During 1 year, 639 TBI patients were included with a mean age of 32 years; of them, 183 received phenytoin as seizure prophylaxis, and 453 received no prophylaxis medication. EOS was documented in 13 (2.0%) patients who received phenytoin, and none had EOS among the nonphenytoin group. The phenytoin group was more likely to have a higher Marshall Score (P = 0.001), lower Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) (P = 0.001), EOS (P = 0.001), and higher mortality (P = 0.001). Phenytoin was administrated for 15.2%, 43.2%, and 64.5% of mild, moderate, and severe TBI patients, respectively. EOS and no-EOS groups were comparable for age, gender, mechanism of injury, GCS, Marshall Score, serum phenytoin levels, liver function levels, hospital stay, and mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that low serum albumin (odds ratio [OR] 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.676–0.962) and toxic phenytoin level (OR 43; 95% CI 2.420–780.7) were independent predictors of EOS.\n \n \n \n In this study, the prophylactic use of phenytoin in TBI was ineffective in preventing EOS. Large-scale matched studies and well-defined hospital protocols are needed for the proper utility of phenytoin post-TBI.\n","PeriodicalId":15692,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jets.jets_93_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Phenytoin is one of the commonly used anti-seizure medications in nontraumatic seizures. However, its utility and safety in young patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) for the prevention of early-onset seizures (EOS) are debatable. We sought to explore the use of phenytoin as a seizure prophylaxis following TBI. We hypothesized that administering phenytoin is not effective in preventing EOS after TBI. This was a retrospective observational study conducted on adult TBI patients. EOS was defined as a witnessed seizure within a week postinjury. Data were compared as phenytoin versus no-phenytoin use, EOS versus no-EOS, and among TBI severity groups. During 1 year, 639 TBI patients were included with a mean age of 32 years; of them, 183 received phenytoin as seizure prophylaxis, and 453 received no prophylaxis medication. EOS was documented in 13 (2.0%) patients who received phenytoin, and none had EOS among the nonphenytoin group. The phenytoin group was more likely to have a higher Marshall Score (P = 0.001), lower Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) (P = 0.001), EOS (P = 0.001), and higher mortality (P = 0.001). Phenytoin was administrated for 15.2%, 43.2%, and 64.5% of mild, moderate, and severe TBI patients, respectively. EOS and no-EOS groups were comparable for age, gender, mechanism of injury, GCS, Marshall Score, serum phenytoin levels, liver function levels, hospital stay, and mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that low serum albumin (odds ratio [OR] 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.676–0.962) and toxic phenytoin level (OR 43; 95% CI 2.420–780.7) were independent predictors of EOS. In this study, the prophylactic use of phenytoin in TBI was ineffective in preventing EOS. Large-scale matched studies and well-defined hospital protocols are needed for the proper utility of phenytoin post-TBI.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
年轻脑外伤患者的癫痫预防措施
苯妥英是治疗非外伤性癫痫发作的常用抗癫痫药物之一。然而,苯妥英在年轻的创伤性脑损伤(TBI)患者中用于预防早发性癫痫发作(EOS)的实用性和安全性还存在争议。我们试图探索苯妥英作为创伤性脑损伤后癫痫发作预防药物的应用。我们假设苯妥英不能有效预防创伤后癫痫发作。 这是一项针对成年创伤性脑损伤患者进行的回顾性观察研究。EOS被定义为受伤后一周内的目击癫痫发作。研究比较了使用苯妥英与不使用苯妥英、EOS与无EOS以及创伤性脑损伤严重程度组之间的数据。 在一年的时间里,共纳入了 639 名创伤性脑损伤患者,他们的平均年龄为 32 岁;其中 183 人接受了苯妥英作为癫痫发作的预防药物,453 人未接受预防药物治疗。接受苯妥英治疗的患者中有 13 人(2.0%)出现 EOS,而未接受苯妥英治疗的患者中没有人出现 EOS。苯妥英组患者的马歇尔评分更高(P = 0.001),格拉斯哥昏迷量表(GCS)更低(P = 0.001),EOS 更高(P = 0.001),死亡率更高(P = 0.001)。分别有 15.2%、43.2% 和 64.5% 的轻度、中度和重度创伤性脑损伤患者使用苯妥英。EOS组和无EOS组在年龄、性别、受伤机制、GCS、马歇尔评分、血清苯妥英水平、肝功能水平、住院时间和死亡率方面具有可比性。多变量逻辑回归分析显示,低血清白蛋白(几率比[OR] 0.81;95% 置信区间[CI] 0.676-0.962)和毒性苯妥英水平(OR 43;95% CI 2.420-780.7)是 EOS 的独立预测因素。 在这项研究中,预防性使用苯妥英治疗创伤性脑损伤并不能有效预防 EOS。要在创伤后正确使用苯妥英,需要进行大规模的匹配研究并制定明确的医院方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
7.10%
发文量
52
审稿时长
39 weeks
期刊最新文献
A Case of Spastic Quadriplegia Remaining after Multiple Traumatic Injuries Complicated by Sepsis and Reversible Posterior Leukoencephalopathy Syndrome, as well as Delayed Multifocal Microbleeds. Acute Myocardial Infarction with Refractory Cardiogenic Shock after High-Voltage Electrocution: An Intriguing Case. Air Everywhere without Bowel Injury. Bed-up-head-elevated Position versus Supine Sniffing Position in Patients Undergoing Rapid Sequence Intubation Using Direct Laryngoscopy in the Emergency Department - A Randomized Controlled Trial. Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Models for Prediction of Acute Liver Injury in Sepsis Patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1