4.6 Review

Prophylactic antiseizure drugs for spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STROKE
卷 18, 期 7, 页码 773-782

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/17474930221140071

关键词

Intracerebral hemorrhage; anticonvulsants; seizure; stroke

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prophylactic antiseizure medications can reduce seizures in patients with sICH through EEG monitoring, but they do not significantly improve functional outcomes.
Background: There is concern that recommendations on prophylactic antiseizure drugs (PASDs) for patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) are biased by studies using older drugs and no electrographic monitoring. Aims: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether PASDs in patients with sICH reduced seizure occurrence and improved functional outcomes. We included analyses of newer trials, newer antiseizure drugs, and effectiveness in patients with consistent electrographic monitoring. Methods: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane were searched from inception until 12 August 2022, to identify studies with patients with sICH treated with PASDs, regardless of study design. The studied outcomes were functional status and occurrence of seizures. Results: Fourteen studies were included, including 6742 patients. Risk of bias was low overall. There was no effect of PASD on seizure occurrence overall (odds ratio (OR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-1.15), but they were associated with reduced occurrence in studies with electrographic monitoring (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.18-0.70). There was no effect of PASDs on functional outcomes (OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.91-1.47) or mortality (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65-1.11). Conclusion: Prophylactic antiseizure medications after sICH reduce seizures in studies with electroencephalogram monitoring in high-risk patients. However, this benefit did not reflect in the improvement of functional outcomes, even in studies with newer, less toxic, antiseizure drugs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据