Intravenous diazepam, midazolam and lorazepam in acute seizure control

Japanese guidelines for treatment of pediatric status epilepticus - 2023

The updated definition of status epilepticus (SE) by the International League Against Epilepsy in 2015 included two critical time points (t1: at which the seizure should be regarded as an "abnormally prolonged seizure"; and t2: beyond which the ongoing seizure activity can pose risk of long-term consequences) to aid in diagnosis and management and highlights the importance of early treatment of SE more clearly than ever before. Although Japan has witnessed an increasing number of pre-hospital drug treatment as well as first- and second-line treatments, clinical issues have emerged regarding which drugs are appropriate. To address these clinical concerns, a revised version of the "Japanese Guidelines for the Treatment of Pediatric Status Epilepticus 2023" (GL2023) was published. For pre-hospital treatment, buccal midazolam is recommended. For in-hospital treatment, if an intravenous route is unobtainable, buccal midazolam is also recommended. If an intravenous route can be obtained, intravenous benzodiazepines such as midazolam, lorazepam, and diazepam are recommended. However, the rates of seizure cessation were reported to be the same among the three drugs, but respiratory depression was less frequent with lorazepam than with diazepam. For established SE, phenytoin/fosphenytoin and phenobarbital can be used for pediatric SE, and levetiracetam can be used in only adults in Japan. Coma therapy is recommended for refractory SE, with no recommended treatment for super-refractory SE. GL2023 lacks adequate recommendations for the treatment of nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE). Although electrographic seizure and electrographic SE may lead to brain damages, it remains unclear whether treatment of NCSE improves outcomes in children. We plan to address this issue in an upcoming edition of the guideline.

Update in Pediatric Neurocritical Care: What a Neurologist Caring for Critically Ill Children Needs to Know

Currently nearly one-quarter of admissions to pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) worldwide are for neurocritical care diagnoses that are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Pediatric neurocritical care is a rapidly evolving field with unique challenges due to not only age-related responses to primary neurologic insults and their treatments but also the rarity of pediatric neurocritical care conditions at any given institution. The structure of pediatric neurocritical care services therefore is most commonly a collaborative model where critical care medicine physicians coordinate care and are supported by a multidisciplinary team of pediatric subspecialists, including neurologists. While pediatric neurocritical care lies at the intersection between critical care and the neurosciences, this narrative review focuses on the most common clinical scenarios encountered by pediatric neurologists as consultants in the PICU and synthesizes the recent evidence, best practices, and ongoing research in these cases. We provide an in-depth review of (1) the evaluation and management of abnormal movements (seizures/status epilepticus and status dystonicus); (2) acute weakness and paralysis (focusing on pediatric stroke and select pediatric neuroimmune conditions); (3) neuromonitoring modalities using a pathophysiology-driven approach; (4) neuroprotective strategies for which there is evidence (e.g., pediatric severe traumatic brain injury, post-cardiac arrest care, and ischemic stroke and hemorrhagic stroke); and (5) best practices for neuroprognostication in pediatric traumatic brain injury, cardiac arrest, and disorders of consciousness, with highlights of the 2023 updates on Brain Death/Death by Neurological Criteria. Our review of the current state of pediatric neurocritical care from the viewpoint of what a pediatric neurologist in the PICU needs to know is intended to improve knowledge for providers at the bedside with the goal of better patient care and outcomes.

Treatment of pediatric convulsive status epilepticus

Status epilepticus is one of the most common life-threatening neurological emergencies in childhood with the highest incidence in the first 5 years of life and high mortality and morbidity rates. Although it is known that a delayed treatment and a prolonged seizure can cause permanent brain damage, there is evidence that current treatments may be delayed and the medication doses administered are insufficient. Here, we summarize current knowledge on treatment of convulsive status epilepticus in childhood and propose a treatment algorithm. We performed a structured literature search via PubMed and ClinicalTrails.org and identified 35 prospective and retrospective studies on children <18 years comparing two and more treatment options for status epilepticus. The studies were divided into the commonly used treatment phases. As a first-line treatment, benzodiazepines buccal/rectal/intramuscular/intravenous are recommended. For status epilepticus treated with benzodiazepine refractory, no superiority of fosphenytoin, levetirazetam, or phenobarbital was identified. There is limited data on third-line treatments for refractory status epilepticus lasting >30 min. Our proposed treatment algorithm, especially for children with SE, is for in and out-of-hospital onset aids to promote the establishment and distribution of guidelines to address the treatment delay aggressively and to reduce putative permanent neuronal damage. Further studies are needed to evaluate if these algorithms decrease long-term damage and how to treat refractory status epilepticus lasting >30 min.

Benzodiazepine Use for Pediatric Patients With Suspected Nonconvulsive Status Epilepticus With or Without Simplified Electroencephalogram: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

In the present study, we aimed to determine the changes in the administration rate of benzodiazepines for pediatric patients with suspected nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) before and after the introduction of simplified electroencephalography (sEEG) in the emergency department.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included patients who were younger than 18 years and were admitted to the emergency department from August 1, 2009, to July 31, 2017, with altered level of consciousness and nonpurposeful movement of eyes or extremities after the cessation of convulsive status epilepticus. Patients with apparent persistent convulsions, those who were fully conscious on arrival, and those who were transferred from another hospital were excluded. The patients were categorized into pre and post groups based on the introduction of sEEG, and benzodiazepine administration was compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

During the study period, 464 patients with status epilepticus visited our emergency department and 69 and 93 patients fulfilling the study criteria were categorized into the pre and post groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in patient background characteristics between the 2 groups. Simplified electroencephalography was recorded in 52 patients in the post group. Benzodiazepines were administered in 44 of 69 patients (63.8%) in the pre group and 44 of 93 (47.3%) in the post group, and the benzodiazepine administration rate was significantly decreased after the introduction of sEEG ( P = 0.04). The hospitalization rate was significantly lower in the post group, but there were no significant differences in the rates of intensive care unit admission, reconvulsion after discharge, and final diagnoses between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Simplified electroencephalography might aid in determining the need for anticonvulsant treatment for suspected NCSE in pediatric patients. Albeit not a definitive diagnostic tool, sEEG might be a reliable choice in the evaluation of pediatric patients with suspected NCSE.

Termination of seizures in the paediatric age group, best benzodiazepine and route of administration: A network meta-analysis

This network meta-analysis aims to compare various benzodiazepines and their route of administration using the data published exclusively in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two thousand two hundred sixty-three children presenting with an episode of seizure to ER or to a paramedic where they were administered a benzodiazepine as the first-line treatment were included. All the outcomes were measured for their mean with 95% CI and rank probability. The primary outcome was the number of successful seizure cessation. Secondary outcomes were the time interval between drug administration and seizure cessation, the time interval between patient arrival and seizure cessation and the number of episodes of seizure recurrence after drug administration. For the number of successful cessations, intramuscular midazolam showed the highest mean and best rank probability with a value of .881 (.065) and 57.9%, respectively. For the time of cessation, both intravenous lorazepam (IVL) and intravenous diazepam showed a mean of 3.30 (1.30) with IVL having the highest rank probability of 32%. For total time for cessation, intranasal midazolam showed the best mean and rank probability with a value of 4.3 (1.1) and 55%, respectively. Buccal midazolam showed the lowest mean with a value of .106 (.084) for rate of recurrence. Although there was no significant difference between the treatments, but based on the rank probability, IVL shows more promising results for patients who already have an established intravenous line, and for patients presenting in the ER without an intravenous line, the first line of treatment should be INM as it shows the highest rank probability in total time with second-highest successful cessation rate.

Why won't it stop? The dynamics of benzodiazepine resistance in status epilepticus

Status epilepticus is a life-threatening neurological emergency that affects both adults and children. Approximately 36% of episodes of status epilepticus do not respond to the current preferred first-line treatment, benzodiazepines. The proportion of episodes that are refractory to benzodiazepines is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) than in high-income countries (HICs). Evidence suggests that longer episodes of status epilepticus alter brain physiology, thereby contributing to the emergence of benzodiazepine resistance. Such changes include alterations in GABA_A receptor function and in the transmembrane gradient for chloride, both of which erode the ability of benzodiazepines to enhance inhibitory synaptic signalling. Often, current management guidelines for status epilepticus do not account for these duration-related changes in pathophysiology, which might differentially impact individuals in LMICs, where the average time taken to reach medical attention is longer than in HICs. In this Perspective article, we aim to combine clinical insights and the latest evidence from basic science to inspire a new, context-specific approach to efficiently managing status epilepticus.

Benzodiazepines in the Management of Seizures and Status Epilepticus: A Review of Routes of Delivery, Pharmacokinetics, Efficacy, and Tolerability

Status epilepticus (SE) is an acute, life-threatening medical condition that requires immediate, effective therapy. Therefore, the acute care of prolonged seizures and SE is a constant challenge for healthcare professionals, in both the pre-hospital and the in-hospital settings. Benzodiazepines (BZDs) are the first-line treatment for SE worldwide due to their efficacy, tolerability, and rapid onset of action. Although all BZDs act as allosteric modulators at the inhibitory gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)_A receptor, the individual agents have different efficacy profiles and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties, some of which differ significantly. The conventional BZDs clonazepam, diazepam, lorazepam and midazolam differ mainly in their durations of action and available routes of administration. In addition to the common intravenous, intramuscular and rectal administrations that have long been established in the acute treatment of SE, other administration routes for BZDs-such as intranasal administration-have been developed in recent years, with some preparations already commercially available. Most recently, the intrapulmonary administration of BZDs via an inhaler has been investigated. This narrative review provides an overview of the current knowledge on the efficacy and tolerability of different BZDs, with a focus on different routes of administration and therapeutic specificities for different patient groups, and offers an outlook on potential future drug developments for the treatment of prolonged seizures and SE.

Comparison of diazepam and lorazepam for the emergency treatment of adult status epilepticus: a systemic review and meta-analysis

Status epilepticus (SE) is a life‐threatening medical and neurological emergency. Prompt recognition and treatment are essential to stop the seizure and improve patient outcomes. To elucidate which benzodiazepine should be used as the first‐line treatment, a systemic search of the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases was carried out to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing i.v. administration of lorazepam and diazepam used for adult SE. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Only two RCTs were finally analyzed among 2182 papers extracted. The SE definitions, inclusion criteria, and doses of the drugs differed in the two studies. Of 204 patients included, 103 and 101 patients were allocated to the lorazepam and diazepam groups, respectively. The pooled risk ratio (RR) and confidence interval (CI) for lorazepam treatment on seizure cessation (two RCTs, n = 204) showed a significantly superior effect of lorazepam over diazepam (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03–1.49). No statistically significant relationship was found for mortality (two RCTs, n = 204) (RR 0.43; 95% CI, 0.43–6.90), poor neurological outcome (one RCT, n = 134) (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.59–2.04), hypotension (one RCT, n = 70) (RR, 2.68; 95% CI, 0.11–63.61), and respiratory depression (two RCTs, n = 204) (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.48–2.48). The certainty of the evidence was rated as very low. The results of this meta‐analysis of RCTs showed that i.v. lorazepam was better than i.v. diazepam for the cessation of adult SE.

Population Pharmacokinetics and Exploratory Exposure-Response Relationships of Diazepam in Children Treated for Status Epilepticus

Diazepam is labeled for status epilepticus (SE) in children, but there are limited data characterizing its disposition in pediatric patients. We developed a population pharmacokinetic (PK) model of i.v. diazepam in children with SE. We evaluated relationships between PK parameters and both safety and efficacy, and simulated exposures using dosing regimens from the product label and clinical practice. The model was developed using prospective data from a pediatric clinical trial comparing diazepam to lorazepam for treatment of SE. Altogether, 87 patients aged ≥ 3 months to < 18 years contributed 162 diazepam concentrations. Diazepam PKs were well characterized by a two‐compartment model scaled by body size. No significant or clinically important relationships were observed between diazepam PKs and safety or efficacy. Simulations demonstrated that, compared with label dosing, the study dose (0.2 mg/kg i.v., maximum 8 mg) resulted in greater frequency in rapidly achieving the target therapeutic range of 200–600 ng/mL.

Drug management for acute tonic-clonic convulsions including convulsive status epilepticus in children

BACKGROUND

Tonic-clonic convulsions and convulsive status epilepticus (currently defined as a tonic-clonic convulsion lasting at least 30 minutes) are medical emergencies and require urgent and appropriate anticonvulsant treatment. International consensus is that an anticonvulsant drug should be administered for any tonic-clonic convulsion that has been continuing for at least five minutes. Benzodiazepines (diazepam, lorazepam, midazolam) are traditionally regarded as first-line drugs and phenobarbital, phenytoin and paraldehyde as second-line drugs. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002 and updated in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of anticonvulsant drugs used to treat any acute tonic-clonic convulsion of any duration, including established convulsive (tonic-clonic) status epilepticus in children who present to a hospital or emergency medical department.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (23 May 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 23 May 2017), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 23 May 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov (23 May 2017), and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 23 May 2017).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing any anticonvulsant drugs used for the treatment of an acute tonic-clonic convulsion including convulsive status epilepticus in children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes 18 randomised trials involving 2199 participants, and a range of drug treatment options, doses and routes of administration (rectal, buccal, nasal, intramuscular and intravenous). The studies vary by design, setting and population, both in terms of their ages and also in their clinical situation. We have made many comparisons of drugs and of routes of administration of drugs in this review; our key findings are as follows:(1) This review provides only low- to very low-quality evidence comparing buccal midazolam with rectal diazepam for the treatment of acute tonic-clonic convulsions (risk ratio (RR) for seizure cessation 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 1.38; 4 trials; 690 children). However, there is uncertainty about the effect and therefore insufficient evidence to support its use. There were no included studies which compare intranasal and buccal midazolam.(2) Buccal and intranasal anticonvulsants were shown to lead to similar rates of seizure cessation as intravenous anticonvulsants, e.g. intranasal lorazepam appears to be as effective as intravenous lorazepam (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.13; 1 trial; 141 children; high-quality evidence) and intranasal midazolam was equivalent to intravenous diazepam (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.06; 2 trials; 122 children; moderate-quality evidence).(3) Intramuscular midazolam also showed a similar rate of seizure cessation to intravenous diazepam (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.09; 2 trials; 105 children; low-quality evidence).(4) For intravenous routes of administration, lorazepam appears to be as effective as diazepam in stopping acute tonic clonic convulsions: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.16; 3 trials; 414 children; low-quality evidence. Furthermore, we found no statistically significant or clinically important differences between intravenous midazolam and diazepam (RR for seizure cessation 1.08, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.21; 1 trial; 80 children; moderate-quality evidence) or intravenous midazolam and lorazepam (RR for seizure cessation 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.04; 1 trial; 80 children; moderate-quality evidence). In general, intravenously-administered anticonvulsants led to more rapid seizure cessation but this was usually compromised by the time taken to establish intravenous access.(5) There is limited evidence from a single trial to suggest that intranasal lorazepam may be more effective than intramuscular paraldehyde in stopping acute tonic-clonic convulsions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.52; 160 children; moderate-quality evidence).(6) Adverse side effects were observed and reported very infrequently in the included studies. Respiratory depression was the most common and most clinically relevant side effect and, where reported, the frequency of this adverse event was observed in 0% to up to 18% of children. None of the studies individually demonstrated any difference in the rates of respiratory depression between the different anticonvulsants or their different routes of administration; but when pooled, three studies (439 children) provided moderate-quality evidence that lorazepam was significantly associated with fewer occurrences of respiratory depression than diazepam (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93).Much of the evidence provided in this review is of mostly moderate to high quality. However, the quality of the evidence provided for some important outcomes is low to very low, particularly for comparisons of non-intravenous routes of drug administration. Low- to very low-quality evidence was provided where limited data and imprecise results were available for analysis, methodological inadequacies were present in some studies which may have introduced bias into the results, study settings were not applicable to wider clinical practice, and where inconsistency was present in some pooled analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have not identified any new high-quality evidence on the efficacy or safety of an anticonvulsant in stopping an acute tonic-clonic convulsion that would inform clinical practice. There appears to be a very low risk of adverse events, specifically respiratory depression. Intravenous lorazepam and diazepam appear to be associated with similar rates of seizure cessation and respiratory depression. Although intravenous lorazepam and intravenous diazepam lead to more rapid seizure cessation, the time taken to obtain intravenous access may undermine this effect. In the absence of intravenous access, buccal midazolam or rectal diazepam are therefore acceptable first-line anticonvulsants for the treatment of an acute tonic-clonic convulsion that has lasted at least five minutes. There is no evidence provided by this review to support the use of intranasal midazolam or lorazepam as alternatives to buccal midazolam or rectal diazepam.

Is intravenous lorazepam really more effective and safe than intravenous diazepam as first-line treatment for convulsive status epilepticus? A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Some guidelines or expert consensus indicate that intravenous (IV) lorazepam (LZP) is preferable to IV diazepam (DZP) for initial treatment of convulsive status epilepticus (SE). We aimed to critically assess all the available data on efficacy and tolerability of IV LZP compared with IV DZP as first-line treatment of convulsive SE.

METHODS

Systematic search of the literature (MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov) to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IV LZP versus IV DZP used as first-line treatment for convulsive SE (generalized or focal). Inverse variance, Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis to obtain risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) of following outcomes: seizure cessation after drug administration; continuation of SE requiring a different drug; seizure cessation after a single dose of medication; need for ventilator support; clinically relevant hypotension.

RESULTS

Five RCTs were included, with a total of 656 patients, 320 randomly allocated to IV LZP and 336 to IV DZP. No statistically significant differences were found between IV LZP and IV DZP for clinical seizure cessation (RR 1.09; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.20), continuation of SE requiring a different drug (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02), seizure cessation after a single dose of medication (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.08), need for ventilator support RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.43, and clinically relevant hypotension.

CONCLUSION

Despite its favorable pharmacokinetic profile, a systematic appraisal of the literature does not provide evidence to strongly support the preferential use of IV LZP as first-line treatment of convulsive SE over IV DZP.

Benzodiazepine use in seizure emergencies: A systematic review

PURPOSE

The aim of this review was to systematically examine safety and efficacy outcomes, as well as patient/caregiver satisfaction, from clinical studies in pediatric and adult patients treated with benzodiazepines (BZDs) through various administration routes in response to seizure emergencies.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted to identify articles describing the use of various routes of administration (RoAs) of BZDs for the treatment of seizure emergencies through April 21, 2015, using Embase™ and PubMed®. Eligible studies included (a) randomized controlled trials or (b) controlled nonrandomized clinical trials, either retrospective or prospective. Outcome assessments reviewed were 1) time to administration, 2) time to seizure termination, 3) rate of treatment failure, 4) prevention of seizure recurrence, 5) patient and caregiver treatment satisfaction, 6) adverse events related to BDZ treatment or RoA, and 7) respiratory adverse events.

RESULTS

Seventy-five studies evaluated safety and efficacy using individual or comparator BDZs of various RoAs for treating seizure emergencies in all-aged patients with epilepsy. Buccal, intranasal (IN), or intramuscular (IM) BZDs were often more rapidly administered compared with rectal and intravenous (IV) formulations. Time to seizure termination, seizure recurrence rates, and adverse events were generally similar among RoAs, whereas nonrectal RoAs resulted in greater patient and caregiver satisfaction compared with rectal RoA.

SIGNIFICANCE

Results of this systematic literature review suggest that nonrectal and non-IV BZD formulations provide equal or improved efficacy and safety outcomes compared with rectal and IV formulations for the treatment of seizure emergencies.

Pharmacotherapy for Status Epilepticus

Status epilepticus (SE) represents the most severe form of epilepsy. It is one of the most common neurologic emergencies, with an incidence of up to 61 per 100,000 per year and an estimated mortality of 20 %. Clinically, tonic-clonic convulsive SE is divided into four subsequent stages: early, established, refractory, and super-refractory. Pharmacotherapy of status epilepticus, especially of its later stages, represents an "evidence-free zone," due to a lack of high-quality, controlled trials to inform clinical decisions. This comprehensive narrative review focuses on the pharmacotherapy of SE, presented according to the four-staged approach outlined above, and providing pharmacological properties and efficacy/safety data for each antiepileptic drug according to the strength of scientific evidence from the available literature. Data sources included MEDLINE and back-tracking of references in pertinent studies. Intravenous lorazepam or intramuscular midazolam effectively control early SE in approximately 63-73 % of patients. Despite a suboptimal safety profile, intravenous phenytoin or phenobarbital are widely used treatments for established SE; alternatives include valproate, levetiracetam, and lacosamide. Anesthetics are widely used in refractory and super-refractory SE, despite the current lack of trials in this field. Data on alternative treatments in the later stages are limited. Valproate and levetiracetam represent safe and effective alternatives to phenobarbital and phenytoin for treatment of established SE persisting despite first-line treatment with benzodiazepines. To date there are no class I data to support recommendations for most antiepileptic drugs for established, refractory, and super-refractory SE. Limiting the methodologic heterogeneity across studies is required and high-class randomized, controlled trials to inform clinicians about the best treatment in established and refractory status are needed.

Parenteral midazolam is superior to diazepam for treatment of prehospital seizures

INTRODUCTION

Diazepam and midazolam are commonly used by paramedics to treat seizures. A period of drug scarcity was used as an opportunity to compare their effectiveness in treating prehospital seizures.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of a single, large, commercial agency during a 29-month period was performed. The period included alternating shortages of both medications. Ambulances were stocked with either diazepam or midazolam based on availability of the drugs. Adult patients who received at least 1 parenteral dose of diazepam or midazolam for treatment of seizures were included. The regional prehospital protocol recommended 5 mg intravenous (IV) diazepam, 5 mg intramuscular (IM) diazepam, 5 mg IM midazolam, or 2.5 mg IV midazolam. Medication effectiveness was compared with respect to the primary end point: cessation of seizure without repeat seizure during the prehospital encounter.

RESULTS

A total of 440 study subjects received 577 administrations of diazepam or midazolam and met the study criteria. The subjects were 52% male, with a mean age of 48 (range 18-94) years. A total of 237 subjects received 329 doses of diazepam, 64 (27%) were treated with first-dose IM. A total of 203 subjects received 248 doses of midazolam; 71 (35%) were treated with first-dose IM. Seizure stopped and did not recur in 49% of subjects after parenteral diazepam and 65% of subjects after parenteral midazolam (p = 0.002). Diazepam and midazolam exhibited similar first dose success for IV administration (58 vs. 62%; p = 0.294). Age, gender, seizure history, hypoglycemia, the presence of trauma, time to first administration, prehospital contact time, and frequency of IM administration were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

For parenteral administration, midazolam demonstrated superior first-dose seizure suppression. This study demonstrates how periods of drug scarcity can be utilized to study prehospital medication effectiveness.

Intramuscular midazolam versus intravenous diazepam for treatment of seizures in the pediatric emergency department: a randomized clinical trial

AIM

To compare the therapeutic efficacy of intramuscular midazolam (MDZ-IM) with that of intravenous diazepam (DZP-IV) for seizures in children.

DESIGN

Randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

Pediatric emergency department.

PATIENTS

Children aged 2 months to 14 years admitted to the study facility with seizures.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomized to receive DZP-IV or MDZ-IM.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS

Groups were compared with respect to time to treatment start (min), time from drug administration to seizure cessation (min), time to seizure cessation (min), and rate of treatment failure. Treatment was considered successful when seizure cessation was achieved within 5min of drug administration.

RESULTS

Overall, 32 children (16 per group) completed the study. Intravenous access could not be obtained within 5min in four patients (25%) in the DZP-IV group. Time from admission to active treatment and time to seizure cessation was shorter in the MDZ-IM group (2.8 versus 7.4min; p<0.001 and 7.3 versus 10.6min; p=0.006, respectively). In two children per group (12.5%), seizures continued after 10min of treatment, and additional medications were required. There were no between-group differences in physiological parameters or adverse events (p=0.171); one child (6.3%) developed hypotension in the MDZ-IM group and five (31%) developed hyperactivity or vomiting in the DZP-IV group.

CONCLUSION

Given its efficacy and ease and speed of administration, intramuscular midazolam is an excellent option for treatment of childhood seizures, enabling earlier treatment and shortening overall seizure duration. There were no differences in complications when applying MDZ-IM or DZP-IV.

Risk factors for apnea in pediatric patients transported by paramedics for out-of-hospital seizure

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Apnea is a known complication of pediatric seizures, but patient factors that predispose children are unclear. We seek to quantify the risk of apnea attributable to midazolam and identify additional risk factors for apnea in children transported by paramedics for out-of-hospital seizure.

METHODS

This is a 2-year retrospective study of pediatric patients transported by paramedics to 2 tertiary care centers. Patients were younger than 15 years and transported by paramedics to the pediatric emergency department (ED) for seizure. Patients with trauma and those with another pediatric ED diagnosis were excluded. Investigators abstracted charts for patient characteristics and predefined risk factors: developmental delay, treatment with antiepileptic medications, and seizure on pediatric ED arrival. Primary outcome was apnea defined as bag-mask ventilation or intubation for apnea by paramedics or by pediatric ED staff within 30 minutes of arrival.

RESULTS

There were 1,584 patients who met inclusion criteria, with a median age of 2.3 years (Interquartile range 1.4 to 5.2 years). Paramedics treated 214 patients (13%) with midazolam. Seventy-one patients had apnea (4.5%): 44 patients were treated with midazolam and 27 patients were not treated with midazolam. After simultaneous evaluation of midazolam administration, age, fever, developmental delay, antiepileptic medication use, and seizure on pediatric ED arrival, 2 independent risk factors for apnea were identified: persistent seizure on arrival (odds ratio [OR]=15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 8 to 27) and administration of field midazolam (OR=4; 95% CI 2 to 7).

CONCLUSION

We identified 2 risk factors for apnea in children transported for seizure: seizure on arrival to the pediatric ED and out-of-hospital administration of midazolam.