Propofol versus thiopental sodium for the treatment of refractory status epilepticus (Review)

Hemanshu Prabhakar, Ashish Bindra, Gyaninder Pal Singh, Mani Kalaivani
{"title":"Propofol versus thiopental sodium for the treatment of refractory status epilepticus (Review)","authors":"Hemanshu Prabhakar,&nbsp;Ashish Bindra,&nbsp;Gyaninder Pal Singh,&nbsp;Mani Kalaivani","doi":"10.1002/ebch.1929","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Failure to respond to antiepileptic drugs in uncontrolled seizure activity such as refractory status epilepticus (RSE) has led to the use of anaesthetic drugs. Coma is induced with anaesthetic drugs to achieve complete control of seizure activity. Thiopental sodium and propofol are popularly used for this purpose. Both agents have been found to be effective. However, there is substantial lack of evidence as to which of the two drugs is better in terms of clinical outcome.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To compare the efficacy, adverse effects, and short- and long-term outcomes of RSE treated with one of the two anaesthetic agents, thiopental sodium or propofol.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Search methods</h3>\n \n <p>We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (10 May 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL Issue 4 of 12, <i>The Cochrane Library</i> 2012), and MEDLINE (1946 to May week 1, 2012). We also searched (10 May 2012) ClinicalTrials.gov, The South Asian Database of Controlled Clinical Trials, and IndMED (a bibliographic database of Indian Medical Journals).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Selection criteria</h3>\n \n <p>All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled studies (regardless of blinding) of control of RSE using either thiopental sodium or propofol.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Data collection and analysis</h3>\n \n <p>Two review authors screened the search results and reviewed abstracts of relevant and eligible trials before retrieving the full text publications.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main results</h3>\n \n <p>One study was available for review. This study was a small, single-blind, multicentre trial studying adults with RSE and receiving either propofol or thiopental sodium for the control of seizure activity (Rossetti 2011). This study showed a wide confidence interval suggesting that the drugs may differ in efficacy up to more than two-fold. There was no evidence of a difference between the drugs with respect to the outcome measures such as control of seizure activity and functional outcome at three months.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Authors' conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>There is lack of robust and randomised controlled evidence that can clarify the efficacy of propofol and thiopental sodium over each other in the treatment of RSE. There is a need for large, randomised controlled trials for this serious condition.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Plain Language Summary</h3>\n \n <p><b>Propofol versus thiopental sodium for the treatment of refractory status epilepticus</b></p>\n \n <p>Persistent convulsions are a major medical emergency associated with significant morbidity and mortality. At times, these convulsions fail to respond to first- and second-line drug therapy and may be observed in up to 31% of patients suffering from persistent seizure or convulsive activities. Persistent seizure activity may become refractory to antiepileptic drugs. Anaesthetics such as thiopental sodium and propofol are frequently given for control of seizures in such situations. Both agents have inherent side effects and complications. This review appraises the evidence for the these anaesthetic drugs in controlling seizure activity in patients with RSE.</p>\n \n <p>There is a lack of good-quality evidence to support the choice of anaesthetic drug for the treatment of patients with RSE. Only one trial could be identified, which was terminated early due to recruitment problems. The two drugs did not show any difference among each other. The only difference noted was the requirement of prolonged mechanical ventilation for patients in the thiopental group. This could be due to the long half-life of the drug. There is a clear need for a large randomised controlled trial to study the efficacy of anaesthetic agents in the treatment of RSE.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":12162,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based child health : a Cochrane review journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/ebch.1929","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based child health : a Cochrane review journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ebch.1929","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Background

Failure to respond to antiepileptic drugs in uncontrolled seizure activity such as refractory status epilepticus (RSE) has led to the use of anaesthetic drugs. Coma is induced with anaesthetic drugs to achieve complete control of seizure activity. Thiopental sodium and propofol are popularly used for this purpose. Both agents have been found to be effective. However, there is substantial lack of evidence as to which of the two drugs is better in terms of clinical outcome.

Objectives

To compare the efficacy, adverse effects, and short- and long-term outcomes of RSE treated with one of the two anaesthetic agents, thiopental sodium or propofol.

Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (10 May 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL Issue 4 of 12, The Cochrane Library 2012), and MEDLINE (1946 to May week 1, 2012). We also searched (10 May 2012) ClinicalTrials.gov, The South Asian Database of Controlled Clinical Trials, and IndMED (a bibliographic database of Indian Medical Journals).

Selection criteria

All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled studies (regardless of blinding) of control of RSE using either thiopental sodium or propofol.

Data collection and analysis

Two review authors screened the search results and reviewed abstracts of relevant and eligible trials before retrieving the full text publications.

Main results

One study was available for review. This study was a small, single-blind, multicentre trial studying adults with RSE and receiving either propofol or thiopental sodium for the control of seizure activity (Rossetti 2011). This study showed a wide confidence interval suggesting that the drugs may differ in efficacy up to more than two-fold. There was no evidence of a difference between the drugs with respect to the outcome measures such as control of seizure activity and functional outcome at three months.

Authors' conclusions

There is lack of robust and randomised controlled evidence that can clarify the efficacy of propofol and thiopental sodium over each other in the treatment of RSE. There is a need for large, randomised controlled trials for this serious condition.

Plain Language Summary

Propofol versus thiopental sodium for the treatment of refractory status epilepticus

Persistent convulsions are a major medical emergency associated with significant morbidity and mortality. At times, these convulsions fail to respond to first- and second-line drug therapy and may be observed in up to 31% of patients suffering from persistent seizure or convulsive activities. Persistent seizure activity may become refractory to antiepileptic drugs. Anaesthetics such as thiopental sodium and propofol are frequently given for control of seizures in such situations. Both agents have inherent side effects and complications. This review appraises the evidence for the these anaesthetic drugs in controlling seizure activity in patients with RSE.

There is a lack of good-quality evidence to support the choice of anaesthetic drug for the treatment of patients with RSE. Only one trial could be identified, which was terminated early due to recruitment problems. The two drugs did not show any difference among each other. The only difference noted was the requirement of prolonged mechanical ventilation for patients in the thiopental group. This could be due to the long half-life of the drug. There is a clear need for a large randomised controlled trial to study the efficacy of anaesthetic agents in the treatment of RSE.

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
异丙酚与硫喷妥钠治疗难治性癫痫持续状态(综述)
背景:在诸如难治性癫痫持续状态(RSE)等不受控制的癫痫发作活动中抗癫痫药物无效导致了麻醉药物的使用。昏迷是用麻醉药物诱导,以达到完全控制癫痫发作的目的。硫喷妥钠和异丙酚常用于此目的。这两种药剂都被发现是有效的。然而,就临床结果而言,这两种药物中哪一种更好,缺乏大量证据。目的比较硫喷妥钠和异丙酚两种麻醉剂治疗RSE的疗效、不良反应和短期和长期结局。检索方法我们检索了Cochrane癫痫组专门登记(2012年5月10日)、Cochrane中央对照试验登记(中央12期第4期,Cochrane图书馆2012年)和MEDLINE(1946年至2012年5月第1周)。我们还检索了(2012年5月10日)ClinicalTrials.gov、南亚对照临床试验数据库和IndMED(印度医学期刊书目数据库)。选择标准:所有随机或准随机对照研究(不考虑盲法)使用硫喷妥钠或异丙酚控制RSE。数据收集和分析两位综述作者在检索全文出版物之前对检索结果进行筛选,并对相关和符合条件的试验的摘要进行审查。主要结果1项研究可供回顾。该研究是一项小型、单盲、多中心试验,研究患有RSE的成年人,并接受异丙酚或硫喷妥钠来控制癫痫发作活动(Rossetti 2011)。这项研究显示了一个广泛的置信区间,表明这两种药物的疗效可能相差两倍以上。没有证据表明两种药物在三个月时癫痫发作活动控制和功能结果等结果测量方面存在差异。作者的结论:缺乏可靠的随机对照证据来阐明异丙酚和硫喷妥钠在治疗RSE方面的疗效。有必要对这种严重疾病进行大规模的随机对照试验。异丙酚与硫喷妥钠治疗难治性癫痫持续状态持续惊厥是一种与显著发病率和死亡率相关的主要医学紧急情况。有时,这些抽搐对一线和二线药物治疗无效,可能在高达31%的持续癫痫发作或抽搐活动的患者中观察到。持续的癫痫活动可能对抗癫痫药物变得难治。在这种情况下,经常使用硫喷妥钠和异丙酚等麻醉剂来控制癫痫发作。这两种药物都有固有的副作用和并发症。这篇综述评价了这些麻醉药物在控制RSE患者癫痫发作活动中的证据。目前缺乏高质量的证据来支持选择麻醉药物治疗RSE患者。只能确定一项试验,由于征聘问题而提前终止。这两种药之间没有任何差别。唯一的区别是硫喷妥钠组患者需要延长机械通气时间。这可能是由于该药的半衰期很长。很明显,需要一项大型随机对照试验来研究麻醉药物治疗RSE的疗效。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Issue Information A meta-epidemiological study to examine the association between bias and treatment effects in neonatal trials Pros and cons … Formoterol or salmeterol for asthma—should they be used as monotherapy? Interventions for treating femoral shaft fractures in children and adolescents
×
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