Abend, Nicholas S.

Abstract Objective This study was undertaken to evaluate benzodiazepine (BZD) administration patterns before transitioning to non‐BZD antiseizure medication (ASM) in pediatric patients with refractory convulsive status epilepticus (rSE). Methods This retrospective multicenter study in the United States and Canada used prospectively collected observational data from children admitted with rSE between 2011 and 2020. Outcome variables were the number of BZDs given before the first non‐BZD ASM, and the number of BZDs administered after 30 and 45 min from seizure onset and before escalating to non‐BZD ASM. Results We included 293 patients with a median (interquartile range) age of 3.8 (1.3–9.3) years. Thirty‐six percent received more than two BZDs before escalating, and the later the treatment initiation was after seizure onset, the less likely patients were to receive multiple BZD doses before transitioning (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = .998, 95% confidence interval [CI] = .997–.999 per minute, p = .01). Patients received BZDs beyond 30 and 45 min in 57.3% and 44.0% of cases, respectively. Patients with out‐of‐hospital seizure onset were more likely to receive more doses of BZDs beyond 30 min (IRR = 2.43, 95% CI = 1.73–3.46, p < .0001) and beyond 45 min (IRR = 3.75, 95% CI = 2.40–6.03, p < .0001) compared to patients with in‐hospital seizure onset. Intermittent SE was a risk factor for more BZDs administered beyond 45 min compared to continuous SE (IRR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.01–2.06, p = .04). Forty‐seven percent of patients ( n = 94) with out‐of‐hospital onset did not receive treatment before hospital arrival. Among patients with out‐of‐hospital onset who received at least two BZDs before hospital arrival ( n = 54), 48.1% received additional BZDs at hospital arrival. Significance Failure to escalate from BZDs to non‐BZD ASMs occurs mainly in out‐of‐hospital rSE onset. Delays in the implementation of medical guidelines may be reduced by initiating treatment before hospital arrival and facilitating a transition to non‐BZD ASMs after two BZD doses during handoffs between prehospital and in‐hospital settings.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the pediatric super-refractory status epilepticus population by describing treatment variability in super-refractory status epilepticus patients and comparing relevant clinical characteristics, including outcomes, between super-refractory status epilepticus, and nonsuper-refractory status epilepticus patients. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study with prospectively collected data between June 2011 and January 2019. SETTING: Seventeen academic hospitals in the United States. PATIENTS: We included patients 1 month to 21 years old presenting with convulsive refractory status epilepticus. We defined super-refractory status epilepticus as continuous or intermittent seizures lasting greater than or equal to 24 hours following initiation of continuous infusion and divided the cohort into super-refractory status epilepticus and nonsuper-refractory status epilepticus groups. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified 281 patients (157 males) with a median age of 4.1 years (1.3–9.5 yr), including 31 super-refractory status epilepticus patients. Compared with nonsuper-refractory status epilepticus group, super-refractory status epilepticus patients had delayed initiation of first nonbenzodiazepine-antiseizure medication (149 min [55–491.5 min] vs 62 min [33.3–120.8 min]; p = 0.030) and of continuous infusion (495 min [177.5–1,255 min] vs 150 min [90–318.5 min]; p = 0.003); prolonged seizure duration (120 hr [58–368 hr] vs 3 hr [1.4–5.9 hr]; p < 0.001) and length of ICU stay (17 d [9.5–40 d] vs [1.8–8.8 d]; p < 0.001); more medical complications (18/31 [58.1%] vs 55/250 [22.2%] patients; p < 0.001); lower return to baseline function (7/31 [22.6%] vs 182/250 [73.4%] patients; p < 0.001); and higher mortality (4/31 [12.9%] vs 5/250 [2%]; p = 0.010). Within the super-refractory status epilepticus group, status epilepticus resolution was attained with a single continuous infusion in 15 of 31 patients (48.4%), two in 10 of 31 (32.3%), and three or more in six of 31 (19.4%). Most super-refractory status epilepticus patients (30/31, 96.8%) received midazolam as first choice. About 17 of 31 patients (54.8%) received additional treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Super-refractory status epilepticus patients had delayed initiation of nonbenzodiazepine antiseizure medication treatment, higher number of medical complications and mortality, and lower return to neurologic baseline than nonsuper-refractory status epilepticus patients, although these associations were not adjusted for potential confounders. Treatment approaches following the first continuous infusion were heterogeneous, reflecting limited information to guide clinical decision-making in super-refractory status epilepticus.

Purpose: We aimed to determine whether clinical EEG reports obtained from children in the intensive care unit with refractory status epilepticus could provide data for comparative effectiveness research studies. Methods: We conducted a retrospective descriptive study to assess the documentation of key variables within clinical continuous EEG monitoring reports based on the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society's standardized EEG terminology for children with refractory status epilepticus from 10 academic centers. Two pediatric electroencephalographers reviewed the EEG reports. We compared reports generated using free text or templates. Results: We reviewed 191 EEG reports. Agreement between the electroencephalographers regarding whether a variable was described in the report ranged from fair to very good. The presence of electrographic seizures (ES) was documented in 46% (87/191) of reports, and these reports documented the time of first ES in 64% (56/87), ES duration in 72% (63/85), and ES frequency in 68% (59/87). Reactivity was documented in 16% (31/191) of reports, and it was more often documented in template than in free-text reports (40% vs. 14%, P = 0.006). Other variables were not differentially reported in template versus free-text reports. Conclusions: Many key EEG features are not documented consistently in clinical continuous EEG monitoring reports, including ES characteristics and reactivity assessment. Standardization may be needed for clinical EEG reports to provide informative data for large multicenter observational studies.

SummaryWe convened an international group of experts to standardize definitions of New‐Onset Refractory Status Epilepticus (NORSE), Febrile Infection‐Related Epilepsy Syndrome (FIRES), and related conditions. This was done to enable improved communication for investigators, physicians, families, patients, and other caregivers. Consensus definitions were achieved via email messages, phone calls, an in‐person consensus conference, and collaborative manuscript preparation. Panel members were from 8 countries and included adult and pediatric experts in epilepsy, electroencephalography (EEG), and neurocritical care. The proposed consensus definitions are as follows: NORSE isa clinical presentation, not a specific diagnosis, in a patient without active epilepsy or other preexisting relevant neurological disorder, with new onset of refractory status epilepticus without a clear acute or active structural, toxic or metabolic cause. FIRES is a subcategory of NORSE, applicable for all ages, that requires a prior febrile infection starting between 2 weeks and 24 hours prior to onset of refractory status epilepticus, with or without fever at onset of status epilepticus. Proposed consensus definitions are also provided for Infantile Hemiconvulsion‐Hemiplegia and Epilepsy syndrome (IHHE) and for prolonged, refractory and super‐refractory status epilepticus. This document has been endorsed by the Critical Care EEG Monitoring Research Consortium. We hope these consensus definitions will promote improved communication, permit multicenter research, and ultimately improve understanding and treatment of these conditions.