Levetiracetam or Phenytoin as Prophylaxis for Status Epilepticus: Secondary Analysis of the "Approaches and Decisions in Acute Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury Trial" (ADAPT) Dataset, 2014-2017.
{"title":"Levetiracetam or Phenytoin as Prophylaxis for Status Epilepticus: Secondary Analysis of the \"Approaches and Decisions in Acute Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury Trial\" (ADAPT) Dataset, 2014-2017.","authors":"Nasim Ahmed, Larissa Russo, Yen-Hong Kuo","doi":"10.1097/PCC.0000000000003526","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare levetiracetam and phenytoin as prophylaxis for the short-term development of status epilepticus (SE) during care of pediatric patients with acute severe traumatic brain injury (TBI).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Nonprespecified secondary analysis using propensity score matching.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>We used the Approaches and Decisions in Acute Pediatric TBI Trial (ADAPT NCT04077411) dataset (2014-2017).</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>Patients less than 18 years old with Glasgow Coma Scale Score less than or equal to 8 who received levetiracetam or phenytoin as a prophylactic anticonvulsant therapy.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Measurement and main results: </strong>Of the 516 total patients who qualified for the case-control study, 372 (72.1%) patients received levetiracetam, and 144 (27.9%) received phenytoin. After propensity score matching, the pair-matched analysis with 133 in each group failed to identify an association between levetiracetam versus phenytoin use and occurrent of SE (3.8% vs. 0.8%, p = 0.22), or mortality (i.e., in-hospital, 30-d and 60-d). However, on closer inspection of the statistical testing, we cannot exclude the possibility that selecting levetiracetam rather than phenytoin for prophylaxis was associated with the following: up to a mean difference of 7.3% greater prevalence of SE; up to a mean difference of 13.9%, 12.1%, and 13.9% greater mortality during the hospital stay, and 30-, and 60-days after hospital arrival, respectively. Last, analysis of 6 months Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended score in those without premorbid comorbidities, there was an association between favorable outcomes and use of phenytoin rather than levetiracetam prophylaxis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In ADAPT, the decision to use prophylactic levetiracetam versus phenytoin failed to show an association with occurrence of subsequent SE, or mortality. However, we are unable to exclude the possibility that selecting levetiracetam rather than phenytoin for prophylaxis was associated with greater prevalence of SE and mortality. We are unable to make any recommendation about one prophylactic anticonvulsant medication over the other, but recommend that further larger, contemporary studies in severe pediatric TBI are carried out.</p>","PeriodicalId":19760,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric Critical Care Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"710-719"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PCC.0000000000003526","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: To compare levetiracetam and phenytoin as prophylaxis for the short-term development of status epilepticus (SE) during care of pediatric patients with acute severe traumatic brain injury (TBI).
Design: Nonprespecified secondary analysis using propensity score matching.
Setting: We used the Approaches and Decisions in Acute Pediatric TBI Trial (ADAPT NCT04077411) dataset (2014-2017).
Subjects: Patients less than 18 years old with Glasgow Coma Scale Score less than or equal to 8 who received levetiracetam or phenytoin as a prophylactic anticonvulsant therapy.
Intervention: None.
Measurement and main results: Of the 516 total patients who qualified for the case-control study, 372 (72.1%) patients received levetiracetam, and 144 (27.9%) received phenytoin. After propensity score matching, the pair-matched analysis with 133 in each group failed to identify an association between levetiracetam versus phenytoin use and occurrent of SE (3.8% vs. 0.8%, p = 0.22), or mortality (i.e., in-hospital, 30-d and 60-d). However, on closer inspection of the statistical testing, we cannot exclude the possibility that selecting levetiracetam rather than phenytoin for prophylaxis was associated with the following: up to a mean difference of 7.3% greater prevalence of SE; up to a mean difference of 13.9%, 12.1%, and 13.9% greater mortality during the hospital stay, and 30-, and 60-days after hospital arrival, respectively. Last, analysis of 6 months Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended score in those without premorbid comorbidities, there was an association between favorable outcomes and use of phenytoin rather than levetiracetam prophylaxis.
Conclusions: In ADAPT, the decision to use prophylactic levetiracetam versus phenytoin failed to show an association with occurrence of subsequent SE, or mortality. However, we are unable to exclude the possibility that selecting levetiracetam rather than phenytoin for prophylaxis was associated with greater prevalence of SE and mortality. We are unable to make any recommendation about one prophylactic anticonvulsant medication over the other, but recommend that further larger, contemporary studies in severe pediatric TBI are carried out.
期刊介绍:
Pediatric Critical Care Medicine is written for the entire critical care team: pediatricians, neonatologists, respiratory therapists, nurses, and others who deal with pediatric patients who are critically ill or injured. International in scope, with editorial board members and contributors from around the world, the Journal includes a full range of scientific content, including clinical articles, scientific investigations, solicited reviews, and abstracts from pediatric critical care meetings. Additionally, the Journal includes abstracts of selected articles published in Chinese, French, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, and Spanish translations - making news of advances in the field available to pediatric and neonatal intensive care practitioners worldwide.