4.4 Review

Bowel Ischemia in Refractory Status Epilepticus: Report of Two Cases and Review of the Literature

Journal

NEUROCRITICAL CARE
Volume 24, Issue 1, Pages 128-131

Publisher

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12028-015-0181-2

Keywords

Critical care; Status epilepticus; Bowel infarction; Non-occlusive mesenteric ischemia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Bowel ischemia is a rare life threatening complication seen in patients with refractory status epilepticus (RSE). The few reported cases of bowel ischemia in this setting have been associated with the use continuous barbiturate infusions. We report two patients with RSE in the absence of barbiturate infusion and without clear structural, infectious, anatomic, vascular, or autoimmune etiology. We review the clinical details of the cases and potential factors involved in the development of non-occlusive bowel ischemia in patients with RSE. Methods The following is a retrospective review of two cases of non-occlusive mesenteric ischemia that occurred during the management of RSE. The clinical data and the details of pathological examination of the infarcted segments of bowel are presented in both cases. Results In both cases, the bowel ischemia occurred in the absence of barbiturate infusion or evidence of clear thrombosis, infection, or autoimmune etiology. Case 1 had extensive ischemic necrosis of the small bowel with secondary pseudomembrane formation, and case 2 had full thickness infarction of both the large and small bowel. Conclusions The mechanism of bowel infarction in these cases is likely multifactorial and was not associated with barbiturate use. Likely contributors to ischemia include RSE itself, systemic hypotension, vasopressor use, general anesthesia, and abnormal cardiac function. During the management of RSE, every effort must be made to avoid the secondary complications such as bowel ischemia.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available