Current Treatment Options in Neurology

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 247–259 | Cite as

Treatment of convulsive and nonconvulsive status epilepticus

  • Trudy Pang
  • Lawrence J. Hirsch

Opinion statement

Status epilepticus (SE) should be treated as quickly as possible with full doses of medications as detailed in a written hospital protocol. Lorazepam is the drug of choice for initial treatment. If intravenous access is not immediately available, then rectal diazepam or nasal or buccal midazolam should be given. Prehospital treatment of seizures by emergency personnel is effective and safe, and may prevent cases of refractory SE. Home treat-ment of prolonged seizures or clusters with buccal, nasal, or rectal benzodiazepines should be considered for all at-risk patients. Nonconvulsive SE is underdiagnosed. An electroencephalogram should be obtained immediately in anyone with unexplained alter-ation of behavior or mental status and after convulsive SE if the patient does not rapidly awaken. Delay in diagnosis of SE is associated with a worse outcome and a higher likeli-hood of poor response to treatment. For refractory SE, continuous intravenous midazolam and propofol (alone or in combination) are rapidly effective. Randomized trials are needed to determine the best treatment for SE after lorazepam.


Midazolam Status Epilepticus Main Drug Interaction Fosphenytoin Refractory Status Epilepticus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Logroscino G, Hessdorffer DC, Cascino G, et al.: Time trends in incidence, mortality, and case-fatality after first episode of status epilepticus. Epilepsia 2001, 42: 1031–1035.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Claassen J, Lokin JK, Fitzsimmons BF, et al.: Predictors of functional disability and mortality after status epi-lepticus. Neurology 2002, 58: 139–142.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lowenstein DH, Alldredge BK: Status epilepticus. N Engl J Med 1998, 338: 970–976.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Working Group on Status Epilepticus: Treatment of convulsive status epilepticus: Recommendations of the Epilepsy Foundation of America’s Working Group on Status Epilepticus. JAMA 1993, 270: 854–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lowenstein DH, Bleck T, Macdonald RL: It’s time to revise the definition of status epilepticus. Epilepsia 1999, 40: 120–122.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lowenstein DH, Aminoff MJ: Clinical and EEG features of status epilepticus in comatose patients. Neurology 1992, 42: 100–104.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Claassen J, Mayer SA, Kowalski RG, et al.: Detection of electrographic seizures with continuous EEG moni-toring in critically ill patients. Neurology 2004, 62: 1743–1748. This study of 570 patients shows the importance of continuous EEG monitoring in detecting nonconvulsive seizures and NCSE in the ICU setting, especially in comatose patients. More than 90% of the seizures that were recorded were nonconvulsive and would have been missed without EEG monitoring.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lowenstein DH, Alldredge BK: Status epilepticus at an urban public hospital in the 1980s. Neurology 1993, 43: 483–488.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    DeLorenzo RJ, Pellock JM, Towne AR, et al.: Epidemiol-ogy of status epilepticus. J Clin Neurophysiol 1995, 12: 316–325.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Husain AM, Horn GJ, Jacobson MP: Non-convulsive status epilepticus: usefulness of clinical features in selecting patients for urgent EEG. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2003, 74: 189–191.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Young GB, Jordan KG, Doig GS: An assessment of non-convulsive seizures in the intensive care unit using continuous EEG monitoring: an investigation of vari-ables associated with mortality. Neurology 1996, 47: 83–89. This analysis highlighted the risk factors, primarily seizure duration and delay to diagnosis, that are associated with high mortality in nonconvulsive SE.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shorvon S: Status Epilepticus: Its Clinical features and Treatment in Children and Adults. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Waterhouse EJ, Vaughan JK, Barnes TY, et al.: Synergistic effect of status epilepticus and ischemic brain injury on mortality. Epilepsy Res 1998, 29: 175–183.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Towne AR, Pellock JM, Ko D, et al.: Determinants of mor-tality in status epilepticus. Epilepsia 1994, 35: 27–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krumholz A: Complex partial status epilepticus accompanied by serious morbidity and mortality. Neurology 1995, 45: 1499–1504.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vespa PM, O’Phelan K, Shah M, et al.: Acute seizures after intracerebral hemorrhage: a factor in progressive mid-line shift and outcome. Neurology 2003, 60: 1441–1446. This study showed that seizures in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage are associated with increased midline shift inde-pendent of the size of hemorrhage.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Macdonald RL, McLean MJ: Anticonvulsant drugs: mechanisms of action. In Basic Mechanisms of the Epilep-sies: Molecular and Cellular Approaches (Advances in Neu-rology, Volume 44). Edited by Delgado-Escueta AV, Ward Jr AA, Woodbury DM, Porter RJ. New York: Raven Press; 1986: 713–736.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Smith B: Treatment of status epilepticus. Neurol Clin 2001, 19: 347–369.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scott RC, Besag FM, Neville BG: Buccal midazolam and rectal diazepam for treatment of prolonged seizures in childhood and adolescence: a randomized trial. Lancet 1999, 353: 623–626. This study found that outpatient treatment with buccal mida-zolam was slightly more effective than rectal diazepam for sei-zures in children lasting more than 5 minutes (75% vs 59%, P= 0.16). It also showed the ease of use and social acceptabil-ity of the buccal midazolam.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Camfield PR: Buccal midazolam and rectal diazepam for treatment of prolonged seizures in childhood and adolescence: a randomized trial [commentary]. J Pedi-atr 1999, 135: 398–399.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jeannet PY, Roulet E, Maeder-Ingvar M, et al.: Home and hospital treatment of acute seizures in children with nasal midazolam. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 1999, 3: 73–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scheepers M, Scheepers B, Clarke M, et al.: Is intranasal midazolam an effective rescue medication in adoles-cents and adults with severe epilepsy? Seizure 2000, 9: 417–422.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Towne AR, DeLorenzo RJ: Use of intramuscular mida-zolam for status epilepticus. J Emerg Med 1999, 17: 323–328.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chamberlain JM, Altieri MA, Futterman C, et al.: A Pro-spective, randomized study comparing intramuscular midazolam with intravenous diazepam for the treat-ment of seizures in children. Pediatr Emerg Care 1997, 13: 92–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dreifuss FE, Rosman NP, Cloyd JC, et al.: A comparison of rectal diazepam gel and placebo for acute repetitive seizures. N Engl J Med 1998, 338: 1869–1875.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cereghino JJ, Mitchell WG, Murphy J, et al.: Treating repetitive seizures with a rectal diazepam formulation: a randomized study. The North American Diastat Study Group. Neurology 1998, 51: 1274–1282.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lahat E, Goldman M, Barr J, et al.: Comparison of intra-nasal midazolam with intravenous diazepam for treat-ing febrile seizures in children: prospective randomized study. BMJ 2000, 321: 83–86. This study showed that intranasal midazolam stopped sei-zures faster than intravenous diazepam (because of faster administration) and both were well-tolerated; therefore, IN midazolam represents a treatment option for use at home.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Appleton RE, Choonara I, Marland T, et al.: Random-ized controlled trial of buccal midazolam versus rec-tal diazepam for the emergency treatment of seizures in children. Epilepsia 2004, 45(Suppl 7):186.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Alldredge BK, Gelb AM, Issacs SM, et al.: A comparison of lorazepam, diazepam, and placebo for the treat-ment of out-of-hospital status epilepticus. N Engl J Med 2001, 345: 631–637. This study confirmed that benzodiazepines can be safely used in out-of-hospital settings (safer than placebo) and that lorazepam was superior to diazepam and placebo for treat-ment of seizures.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Leppik IE, Derivan AT, Homan RW, et al.: Double-blind study of lorazepam and diazepam in status epilepti-cus. JAMA 1983, 249: 1452–1454.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    DeLorenzo RJ, Waterhouse EJ, Towne AR, et al.: Persis-tent nonconvulsive status epilepticus after the control of convulsive status epilepticus. Epilepsia 1998, 39: 833–840.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Towne AR, Waterhouse EJ, Boggs JG, et al.: Prevalence of nonconvulsive status epilepticus in comatose patients. Neurology 2000, 54: 340–345. This study showed the high prevalence of NCSE (8%) in comatose ICU patients with no clinical evidence of seizures and underscored the importance of EEG for detecting sei-zures. The authors recommended the use of EEG in the rou-tine evaluation of comatose patients.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Treiman DM, Meyers PD, Walton NY, et al.: A compari-son of four treatments for generalized convulsive status epilepticus. Veterans Affairs Status Epilepticus Cooperative Study Group. N Engl J Med 1998, 339: 792–798. This is a very important large, randomized, double blind, multicenter trial of four regimens: diazepam plus phenytoin, phenytoin alone, lorazepam alone, and phenobarbital alone. The study showed that lorazepam was the most effective first line agent for treatment of SE, although this only reached sig-nificance when compared with phenytoin alone; no signifi-cant differences were found between other treatment arms.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bazil CW, Pedley TA: Clinical pharmacology of antiepi-leptic drugs. Clin Neuropharmacol 2003, 26: 38–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Limdi NA, Faught E: The safety of rapid valproic acid infusion. Epilepsia 2000, 41: 1342–1345.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sinha S, Naritoku DK: Intravenous valproate is well tolerated in unstable patients with status epilepticus. Neurology 1999, 55: 722.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Limdi NA, Shimpi AV, Faught E, et al.: Efficacy of rapid IV administration of valproic acid for status epilepti-cus. Neurology 2005, 64: 353–355.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wheless JW, Vasquez BR, Kanner AM, et al.: Rapid infu-sion with valproate sodium is well tolerated in patients with epilepsy. Neurology 2004, 63: 1507–1508.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    White JR, Santos CS: Intravenous valproate associated with significant hypotension in the treatment of status epilepticus. J Child Neurol 1999, 14: 822–823.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Prasad A, Worrall BB, Bertram EH, Bleck TP: Propofol and midazolam in the treatment of refractory status epilepticus. Epilepsia 2001, 42: 380–386.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stecker MM, Kramer TH, Raps EC, et al.: Treatment of refractory status epilepticus with propofol: clinical and pharmacokinetic findings. Epilepsia 1998, 39: 18–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Claassen J, Hirsch LJ, Emerson RG, et al.: Treatment of refractory status epilepticus with pentobarbital, pro-pofol, or midazolam: a systematic review. Epilepsia 2002, 43: 146–153.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rossetti AO, Reichhart MD, Schaller M, et al.: Propofol treatment of refractory status epilepticus. Epilepsia 2004, 45: 757–763. This is the first series to show that propofol combined with a benzodiazepine was effective and safe for the treatment of refractory SE.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Claassen J, Hirsch LJ, Emerson RG, et al.: Continuous EEG monitoring and midazolam infusion for refrac-tory nonconvulsive status epilepticus. Neurology 2001, 57: 1036–1042. This is the largest series of midazolam use for the treatment of refractory SE. Although effective, there was a high rate of breakthrough and withdrawal seizures, almost all nonconvul-sive, on continuous EEG monitoring.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Naritoku DK, Sinha S: Prolongation of midazolam half-life after sustained infusion for status epilepticus. Neurology 2000, 54: 1366–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hanna JP, Ramundo ML: Rhabdomyolysis and hypoxia associated with prolonged propofol infusion in chil-dren. Neurology 2000, 50: 301–303.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Niebauer M, Gruethal M: Topiramate reduces neuronal injury after experimental status epilepticus. Brain 1999, 837: 2653–2659.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Klitgaard H: Levetiracetam: the preclinical profile of a new class of antiepileptic drugs? Epilepsia 2001, 42(Suppl 4):13–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mazarati AM, Wasterlain CG: NMDA receptor antagonists abolish the maintenance phase of self-sustaining status epilepticus in rat. Neurosci Lett 1999, 265: 187–190.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Borris DJ, Bertram EH, Kapur J: Ketamine controls pro-longs status epilepticus. Epil Res 2000, 42: 117–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Crawford TO, Mitchell WG, Fishman LS, Snodgrass SR: Very-high-dose phenobarbital for refractory status epilepticus in children. Neurology 1988, 38: 1035–1040.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Duane DC, Ng YT, Rekate HL, et al.: Treatment of refractory status epilepticus with hemispherectomy. Epilepsia 2004, 45: 1001–1004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Towne AR, Garnett LK, Waterhouse RJ, et al.: The use of topiramte in refractory status epilepticus. Neurology 2003, 60: 332–334.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Appleton R, Choonara I, Martland T, et al.: The treat-ment of convulsive status epilepticus in children. The Status Epilepticus Working Party, Members of the Status Epilepticus Working Party. Arch Dis Child 2000, 83: 415–419.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Jordan KG: Continuous EEG monitoring in the neuro-science intensive care unit and emergency depart-ment. J Clin Neurophysiol 1999, 16: 14–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Vespa PM, Nuwer MR, Nenov V, et al.: Increased inci-dence and impact of nonconvulsive and convulsive seizures after traumatic brain injury as detected by continuous electroencephalographic monitoring. J Neurosurg 1999, 91: 750–760.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    DeGiorgio CM, Heck CN, Rabinowicz AL, et al.: Serum neuron-specific enolase in the major subtypes of status epilepticus. Neurology 1999, 52: 746–749.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    DeGiorgio CM, Correale JD, Gott PS, et al.: Serum neu-ron-specific enolase in human status epilepticus. Neu-rology 1995, 45: 1134–1137.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Trudy Pang
  • Lawrence J. Hirsch
    • 1
  1. 1.Comprehensive Epilepsy CenterColumbia University, Neurological InstituteNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations