Intravenous ketamine for the treatment of refractory status epilepticus: A retrospective multicenter study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine patterns of use, efficacy, and safety of intravenous ketamine for the treatment of refractory status epilepticus (RSE). METHODS: Multicenter retrospective review of medical records and electroencephalography (EEG) reports in 10 academic medical centers in North America and Europe, including 58 subjects, representing 60 episodes of RSE that were identified between 1999 and 2012. Seven episodes occurred after anoxic brain injury. KEY FINDINGS: Permanent control of RSE was achieved in 57% (34 of 60) of episodes. Ketamine was felt to have contributed to permanent control ("possible" or "likely" responses) in 32% (19 of 60) including seven (12%) in which ketamine was the last drug added (likely responses). Four of the seven likely responses, but none of the 12 possible ones, occurred in patients with postanoxic brain injury. No likely responses were observed when infusion rates were lower than 0.9 mg/kg/h, when ketamine was introduced at least 8 days after SE onset, or after failure of seven or more drugs. Ketamine was discontinued due to possible adverse events in five patients. Complications were mostly attributed to concurrent drugs, especially other anesthetics. Mortality rate was 43% (26 of 60), but was lower when SE was controlled within 24 h of ketamine initiation (16% vs. 56%, p = 0.0047). SIGNIFICANCE: Ketamine appears to be a relatively effective and safe drug for the treatment of RSE. This retrospective series provides preliminary data on effective dose and appropriate time of intervention to aid in the design of a prospective trial to further define the role of ketamine in the treatment of RSE.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".