Antiseizure Medication Treatment and Outcomes in Patients with Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Undergoing Continuous EEG Monitoring.

BACKGROUND: Patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) with electroencephalographic epileptiform activity (seizures, periodic and rhythmic patterns, and sporadic discharges) are frequently treated with antiseizure medications (ASMs). However, the safety and effectiveness of ASM treatment for epileptiform activity has not been established. We used observational data to investigate the effectiveness of ASM treatment in patients with aSAH undergoing continuous electroencephalography (cEEG) to develop a causal hypothesis for testing in prospective trials. METHODS: This was a retrospective single-center cohort study of patients with aSAH admitted between 2011 and 2016. Patients underwent ≥ 24 h of cEEG within 4 days of admission. All patients received primary ASM prophylaxis until aneurysm treatment (typically within 24 h of admission). Treatment exposure was defined as reinitiation of ASMs after aneurysm treatment and cEEG initiation. We excluded patients with non-cEEG indications for ASMs (e.g., epilepsy, acute symptomatic seizures). Outcomes measures were 90-day mortality and good functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale scores 0-3). Propensity scores were used to adjust for baseline covariates and disease severity. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients were eligible (40 continued ASM treatment; 54 received prophylaxis only). ASM continuation was not significantly associated with higher 90-day mortality (propensity-adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 2.01 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-7.02]). ASM continuation was associated with lower likelihood for 90-day good functional outcome (propensity-adjusted HR = 0.39 [95% CI 0.18-0.81]). In a secondary analysis, low-intensity treatment (low-dose single ASM) was not significantly associated with mortality (propensity-adjusted HR = 0.60 [95% CI 0.10-3.59]), although it was associated with a lower likelihood of good outcome (propensity-adjusted HR = 0.37 [95% CI 0.15-0.91]), compared with prophylaxis. High-intensity treatment (high-dose single ASM, multiple ASMs, or anesthetics) was associated with higher mortality (propensity-adjusted HR = 6.80 [95% CI 1.67-27.65]) and lower likelihood for good outcomes (propensity-adjusted HR = 0.30 [95% CI 0.10-0.94]) compared with prophylaxis only. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest the testable hypothesis that continuing ASMs in patients with aSAH with cEEG abnormalities does not improve functional outcomes. This hypothesis should be tested in prospective randomized studies.

Effect of epileptiform abnormality burden on neurologic outcome and antiepileptic drug management after subarachnoid hemorrhage.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the burden of epileptiform abnormalities (EAs) including seizures, periodic and rhythmic activity, and sporadic discharges in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH), and assess the effect of EA burden and treatment on outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 136 high-grade aSAH patients. EAs were defined using the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society nomenclature. Burden was defined as prevalence of <1%, 1-9%, 10-49%, 50-89%, and >90% for each 18-24 hour epoch. Our outcome measure was 3-month Glasgow Outcome Score. RESULTS: 47.8% patients had EAs. After adjusting for clinical covariates EA burden on first day of recording and maximum daily burden were associated with worse outcomes. Patients with higher EA burden were more likely to be treated with anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) beyond the standard prophylactic protocol. There was no difference in outcomes between patients continued on AEDs beyond standard prophylaxis compared to those who were not. CONCLUSIONS: Higher burden of EAs in aSAH independently predicts worse outcome. Although nearly half of these patients received treatment, our data suggest current AED management practices may not influence outcome. SIGNIFICANCE: EA burden predicts worse outcomes and may serve as a target for prospective interventional controlled studies to directly assess the impact of AEDs, and create evidence-based treatment protocols.

Electronic Health Data Predict Outcomes After Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage.

BACKGROUD: Using electronic health data, we sought to identify clinical and physiological parameters that in combination predict neurologic outcomes after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study of patients admitted with aSAH between 2011 and 2016. A set of 473 predictor variables was evaluated. Our outcome measure was discharge Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS). For laboratory and physiological data, we computed the minimum, maximum, median, and variance for the first three admission days. We created a penalized logistic regression model to determine predictors of outcome and a multivariate multilevel prediction model to predict poor (GOS 1-2), intermediate (GOS 3), or good (GOS 4-5) outcomes. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-three patients met inclusion criteria; most were discharged with a GOS of 3. Multivariate analysis predictors of mortality (AUC 0.9198) included APACHE II score, Glasgow Come Scale (GCS), white blood cell (WBC) count, mean arterial pressure, variance of serum glucose, intracranial pressure (ICP), and serum sodium. Predictors of death/dependence versus independence (GOS 4-5)(AUC 0.9456) were levetiracetam, mechanical ventilation, WBC count, heart rate, ICP variance, GCS, APACHE II, and epileptiform discharges. The multiclass prediction model selected GCS, admission APACHE II, periodic discharges, lacosamide, and rebleeding as significant predictors; model performance exceeded 80% accuracy in predicting poor or good outcome and exceeded 70% accuracy for predicting intermediate outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Variance in early physiologic data can impact patient outcomes and may serve as targets for early goal-directed therapy. Electronically retrievable features such as ICP, glucose levels, and electroencephalography patterns should be considered in disease severity and risk stratification scores.