Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Neurocritical Care 3/2018

01-12-2018 | Original Article

Safety and Efficiency of Intravenous Push Lacosamide Administration

Authors: K. Erin Davidson, Joshua Newell, Khalid Alsherbini, Joseph Krushinski, G. Morgan Jones

Published in: Neurocritical Care | Issue 3/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background/objective

Intravenous (IV) lacosamide use for status epilepticus has increased in recent years and is recommended for refractory status epilepticus by current guidelines. Per the lacosamide package labeling, the preferred route of administration is diluted and infused over 30–60 min; however, administration undiluted is also acceptable and recent literature demonstrated safety at a maximum rate of 80 mg per minute (Kellinghaus et al. in Acta Neurol Scand 123:137–141, 2011). Undiluted administration as an IV push has potential to increase efficiency of administration to patients needing urgent seizure control since it may be dispensed from automatic dispensing cabinets in patient care areas. This study aims to compare safety outcomes and efficiency of administration in patients receiving lacosamide IV push compared to IV piggyback.

Methods

We present a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients receiving lacosamide via IV piggyback or IV push from June 2016 to July 2017. Baseline characteristics, data related to potential safety concerns and timing of ordering, verification, and administration were collected. The primary safety outcomes were incidence of infusion site reactions, hypotension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] < 90 mm Hg), and bradycardia (heart rate [HR] < 50 beats per minute) documented within 2 h of each lacosamide dose. Secondary safety outcomes included the incidence of PR interval prolongation in patients with at least one electrocardiogram measured. The primary efficiency outcome was the time between order verification and administration.

Results

Patients in the IV piggyback (n = 88) and IV push (n = 78) groups had similar baseline characteristics, initial dose, SBP, and HR. Hypotension (8 vs. 10.3%) and bradycardia (2.3 vs. 2.6%) rates were similar among both groups (p > 0.05). Only one patient in each group had documented PR prolongation, and no documented infusion reactions occurred. Median time from order verification to administration was significantly reduced in the IV push group (35 min vs. 1 h 49 min; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Administration of lacosamide via IV push results in similar adverse effect rates to IV piggyback preparations with more efficient time to administration.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Kellinghaus C, Berning S, Immisch I, et al. Intravenous lacosamide for treatment of status epilepticus. Acta Neurol Scand. 2011;123:137–41.CrossRefPubMed Kellinghaus C, Berning S, Immisch I, et al. Intravenous lacosamide for treatment of status epilepticus. Acta Neurol Scand. 2011;123:137–41.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Brophy GM, Bell R, Claassen J, et al. Guidelines for the evaluation and management of status epilepticus. Neurocrit Care. 2012;17:3–23.CrossRefPubMed Brophy GM, Bell R, Claassen J, et al. Guidelines for the evaluation and management of status epilepticus. Neurocrit Care. 2012;17:3–23.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Vimpat (lacosamide) [prescribing information]. Smyrna, GA: ICB Inc; 2017. Vimpat (lacosamide) [prescribing information]. Smyrna, GA: ICB Inc; 2017.
4.
go back to reference Misra UK, Dubey D, Kalita J. Comparison of lacosamide versus sodium valproate in status epilepticus: a pilot study. Epilepsy Behav. 2017;76:110–3.CrossRefPubMed Misra UK, Dubey D, Kalita J. Comparison of lacosamide versus sodium valproate in status epilepticus: a pilot study. Epilepsy Behav. 2017;76:110–3.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Newey CR, Le NM, Ahrens C, Sahota P, Hantus S. The Safety and effectiveness of intravenous lacosamide for refractory status epilepticus in the critically ill. Neurocrit Care. 2017;26:273–9.CrossRefPubMed Newey CR, Le NM, Ahrens C, Sahota P, Hantus S. The Safety and effectiveness of intravenous lacosamide for refractory status epilepticus in the critically ill. Neurocrit Care. 2017;26:273–9.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Goodwin H, Hinson HE, Shermock KM, Karanjia N, Lewin JJ 3rd. The use of lacosamide in refractory status epilepticus. Neurocrit Care. 2011;14:348–53.CrossRefPubMed Goodwin H, Hinson HE, Shermock KM, Karanjia N, Lewin JJ 3rd. The use of lacosamide in refractory status epilepticus. Neurocrit Care. 2011;14:348–53.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Hofler J, Unterberger I, Dobesberger J, Kuchukhidze G, Walser G, Trinka E. Intravenous lacosamide in status epilepticus and seizure clusters. Epilepsia. 2011;52:e148–52.CrossRefPubMed Hofler J, Unterberger I, Dobesberger J, Kuchukhidze G, Walser G, Trinka E. Intravenous lacosamide in status epilepticus and seizure clusters. Epilepsia. 2011;52:e148–52.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Krause LU, Brodowski KO, Kellinghaus C. Atrioventricular block following lacosamide intoxication. Epilepsy Behav. 2011;20:725–7.CrossRefPubMed Krause LU, Brodowski KO, Kellinghaus C. Atrioventricular block following lacosamide intoxication. Epilepsy Behav. 2011;20:725–7.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Kellinghaus C, Berning S, Besselmann M. Intravenous lacosamide as successful treatment for nonconvulsive status epilepticus after failure of first-line therapy. Epilepsy Behav. 2009;14:429–31.CrossRefPubMed Kellinghaus C, Berning S, Besselmann M. Intravenous lacosamide as successful treatment for nonconvulsive status epilepticus after failure of first-line therapy. Epilepsy Behav. 2009;14:429–31.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Safety and Efficiency of Intravenous Push Lacosamide Administration
Authors
K. Erin Davidson
Joshua Newell
Khalid Alsherbini
Joseph Krushinski
G. Morgan Jones
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Neurocritical Care / Issue 3/2018
Print ISSN: 1541-6933
Electronic ISSN: 1556-0961
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-018-0560-6

Other articles of this Issue 3/2018

Neurocritical Care 3/2018 Go to the issue