Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Intravenous Versus Nonintravenous Benzodiazepines for the Cessation of Seizures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: The acquisition of intravenous (IV) access in the actively convulsing patient is difficult. This often delays the administration of the IV benzodiazepine (BDZ) necessary for seizure cessation. Delays in seizure cessation are associated with increased pharmacoresistance, increased risk of neuronal injury, worse patient outcomes, and increased morbidity.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess whether the delay imposed by IV access acquisition is justified by improved outcomes. We compared IV versus non-IV BDZ efficacy in the real world with regard to failure rates (primary outcome), interval to seizure control, and observed complications (secondary outcomes).

METHODS: A systematic review was performed using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. All studies published or in press from the inception of the respective database to July 2016 were included. Only randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials directly comparing IV to non-IV (buccal, rectal, intranasal, or intramuscular) BDZ were included.

RESULTS: Our search strategy retrieved 2,604 citations for review. A total of 11 studies were finally included in qualitative synthesis and 10 in quantitative analysis. Only one was of high quality. For treatment failure, non-IV BDZ was superior to IV BDZ (odd ratio [OR] = 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.56-0.92). However, no significant difference was found between the two treatments in the pediatric subgroup (OR = 1.16; 95% CI = 0.74-1.81). Non-IV BDZ was administered faster than IV BDZ and therefore controlled seizures faster (mean difference = 3.41 minutes; 95% CI = 1.69-5.13 minutes) despite a longer interval between drug administration and seizure cessation (mean difference = 0.74 minutes; 95% CI = 0.52-0.95 minutes). Respiratory complications requiring intervention were similar between non-IV BDZ and IV BDZ, regardless of administration route (risk difference = 0.00; 95% CI = -0.02 to 0.01).

CONCLUSION: Non-IV BDZ, compared to IV BDZ, terminate seizures faster and have a superior efficacy and side effect profile. Higher-quality studies and further evaluation in different age groups are warranted.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Group 7SearchHeart failure treatmentPapersTopicsCollectionsEffects of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors for the Treatment of Patients With Heart Failure Importance: Only 1 class of glucose-lowering agents-sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors-has been reported to decrease the risk of cardiovascular events primarily by reducingSeptember 1, 2017: JAMA CardiologyAssociations of albuminuria in patients with chronic heart failure: findings in the ALiskiren Observation of heart Failure Treatment study.CONCLUSIONS: Increased UACR is common in patients with heart failure, including non-diabetics. Urinary albumin creatininineJul, 2011: European Journal of Heart FailureRandomized Controlled TrialEffects of Liraglutide on Clinical Stability Among Patients With Advanced Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Review

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Read by QxMD is copyright © 2021 QxMD Software Inc. All rights reserved. By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app