Anti-epileptic drug (AED) use in subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH)

Rui Feng, Justin R Mascitelli, Alexander G. Chartrain, Konstantinos Margetis, J. Mocco

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) and spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) are frequently associated with epileptic complications. The use of anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) for seizure prophylaxis, however, is controversial. In patients with aSAH, nonconvulsive status epilepticus has been associated with poor outcome. Effect of other forms of less severe epileptiform activity on clinical outcome remains unclear. Evidence on efficacy of AEDs in reducing seizure incidence is also mixed. However, increasing number of studies suggest that AEDs may have significant adverse effects on outcome, especially with phenytoin. Similarly, in patients with ICH, the impact of seizures that do not progress to status epilepticus on clinical outcome is controversial, and whether prophylactic AED use has independent effects on outcome remains ambiguous. Currently, there are no large scale randomized control trials investigating the efficacy and safety of AED prophylaxis in patients with hemorrhagic stroke. There are also no trials comparing the efficacy and safety of the different AEDs. Survey based studies have found a wide range of prescribing patterns across treatment centers and clinicians for seizure prophylaxis in patients with hemorrhagic stroke. The lack of clear guidelines and recommendations also highlights the paucity of good quality evidence in this area. In conclusion, a well-designed randomized, double blinded, and appropriately powered trial is needed to evaluate the incidence as well as clinical outcomes in patients with aSAH and ICH who received AED prophylaxis versus controls. The results will be extremely valuable in providing evidence to establish management guidelines for patients with hemorrhagic stroke.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)6446-6453
Number of pages8
JournalCurrent Pharmaceutical Design
Volume23
Issue number42
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2017
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Intracranial Hemorrhages
Subarachnoid Hemorrhage
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Status Epilepticus
Stroke
Seizures
Post-Traumatic Epilepsy
Guidelines
Safety
Incidence
Phenytoin
Epilepsy

Keywords

  • Anti-epileptics
  • Hemorrhagic stroke
  • Intracranial hemorrhage
  • Phenytoin
  • Seizure
  • Subarachnoid hemorrhage

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology
  • Drug Discovery

Cite this

Anti-epileptic drug (AED) use in subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). / Feng, Rui; Mascitelli, Justin R; Chartrain, Alexander G.; Margetis, Konstantinos; Mocco, J.

In: Current Pharmaceutical Design, Vol. 23, No. 42, 01.01.2017, p. 6446-6453.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Feng, Rui ; Mascitelli, Justin R ; Chartrain, Alexander G. ; Margetis, Konstantinos ; Mocco, J. / Anti-epileptic drug (AED) use in subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). In: Current Pharmaceutical Design. 2017 ; Vol. 23, No. 42. pp. 6446-6453.
@article{b062eccba601442fa9bb16a0fe499ece,
title = "Anti-epileptic drug (AED) use in subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH)",
abstract = "Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) and spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) are frequently associated with epileptic complications. The use of anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) for seizure prophylaxis, however, is controversial. In patients with aSAH, nonconvulsive status epilepticus has been associated with poor outcome. Effect of other forms of less severe epileptiform activity on clinical outcome remains unclear. Evidence on efficacy of AEDs in reducing seizure incidence is also mixed. However, increasing number of studies suggest that AEDs may have significant adverse effects on outcome, especially with phenytoin. Similarly, in patients with ICH, the impact of seizures that do not progress to status epilepticus on clinical outcome is controversial, and whether prophylactic AED use has independent effects on outcome remains ambiguous. Currently, there are no large scale randomized control trials investigating the efficacy and safety of AED prophylaxis in patients with hemorrhagic stroke. There are also no trials comparing the efficacy and safety of the different AEDs. Survey based studies have found a wide range of prescribing patterns across treatment centers and clinicians for seizure prophylaxis in patients with hemorrhagic stroke. The lack of clear guidelines and recommendations also highlights the paucity of good quality evidence in this area. In conclusion, a well-designed randomized, double blinded, and appropriately powered trial is needed to evaluate the incidence as well as clinical outcomes in patients with aSAH and ICH who received AED prophylaxis versus controls. The results will be extremely valuable in providing evidence to establish management guidelines for patients with hemorrhagic stroke.",
keywords = "Anti-epileptics, Hemorrhagic stroke, Intracranial hemorrhage, Phenytoin, Seizure, Subarachnoid hemorrhage",
author = "Rui Feng and Mascitelli, {Justin R} and Chartrain, {Alexander G.} and Konstantinos Margetis and J. Mocco",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2174/1381612823666171031095452",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "23",
pages = "6446--6453",
journal = "Current Pharmaceutical Design",
issn = "1381-6128",
publisher = "Bentham Science Publishers B.V.",
number = "42",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Anti-epileptic drug (AED) use in subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH)

AU - Feng, Rui

AU - Mascitelli, Justin R

AU - Chartrain, Alexander G.

AU - Margetis, Konstantinos

AU - Mocco, J.

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) and spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) are frequently associated with epileptic complications. The use of anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) for seizure prophylaxis, however, is controversial. In patients with aSAH, nonconvulsive status epilepticus has been associated with poor outcome. Effect of other forms of less severe epileptiform activity on clinical outcome remains unclear. Evidence on efficacy of AEDs in reducing seizure incidence is also mixed. However, increasing number of studies suggest that AEDs may have significant adverse effects on outcome, especially with phenytoin. Similarly, in patients with ICH, the impact of seizures that do not progress to status epilepticus on clinical outcome is controversial, and whether prophylactic AED use has independent effects on outcome remains ambiguous. Currently, there are no large scale randomized control trials investigating the efficacy and safety of AED prophylaxis in patients with hemorrhagic stroke. There are also no trials comparing the efficacy and safety of the different AEDs. Survey based studies have found a wide range of prescribing patterns across treatment centers and clinicians for seizure prophylaxis in patients with hemorrhagic stroke. The lack of clear guidelines and recommendations also highlights the paucity of good quality evidence in this area. In conclusion, a well-designed randomized, double blinded, and appropriately powered trial is needed to evaluate the incidence as well as clinical outcomes in patients with aSAH and ICH who received AED prophylaxis versus controls. The results will be extremely valuable in providing evidence to establish management guidelines for patients with hemorrhagic stroke.

AB - Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) and spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) are frequently associated with epileptic complications. The use of anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) for seizure prophylaxis, however, is controversial. In patients with aSAH, nonconvulsive status epilepticus has been associated with poor outcome. Effect of other forms of less severe epileptiform activity on clinical outcome remains unclear. Evidence on efficacy of AEDs in reducing seizure incidence is also mixed. However, increasing number of studies suggest that AEDs may have significant adverse effects on outcome, especially with phenytoin. Similarly, in patients with ICH, the impact of seizures that do not progress to status epilepticus on clinical outcome is controversial, and whether prophylactic AED use has independent effects on outcome remains ambiguous. Currently, there are no large scale randomized control trials investigating the efficacy and safety of AED prophylaxis in patients with hemorrhagic stroke. There are also no trials comparing the efficacy and safety of the different AEDs. Survey based studies have found a wide range of prescribing patterns across treatment centers and clinicians for seizure prophylaxis in patients with hemorrhagic stroke. The lack of clear guidelines and recommendations also highlights the paucity of good quality evidence in this area. In conclusion, a well-designed randomized, double blinded, and appropriately powered trial is needed to evaluate the incidence as well as clinical outcomes in patients with aSAH and ICH who received AED prophylaxis versus controls. The results will be extremely valuable in providing evidence to establish management guidelines for patients with hemorrhagic stroke.

KW - Anti-epileptics

KW - Hemorrhagic stroke

KW - Intracranial hemorrhage

KW - Phenytoin

KW - Seizure

KW - Subarachnoid hemorrhage

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85046850816&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85046850816&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2174/1381612823666171031095452

DO - 10.2174/1381612823666171031095452

M3 - Review article

C2 - 29086673

AN - SCOPUS:85046850816

VL - 23

SP - 6446

EP - 6453

JO - Current Pharmaceutical Design

JF - Current Pharmaceutical Design

SN - 1381-6128

IS - 42

ER -