Electroencephalographic and Electrocardiographic Effect of Intravenous Lacosamide in Refractory Focal Epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Lacosamide selectively enhances slow inactivation of voltage-gated sodium channels to achieve seizure reduction. We studied the effect of intravenous lacosamide given as one of three single doses on EEG and electrocardiogram, as well as its tolerability in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. METHODS: This Canadian, investigator-initiated, multicenter, double-blind study recruited patients with refractory focal epilepsy admitted to a seizure monitoring unit. Participants received a loading dose of 100, 200, or 400 mg lacosamide over 30 minutes during continuous monitoring by video-EEG and 12-lead electrocardiogram. The number of interictal spikes, frequency and quantity of background EEG rhythms, corrected QT interval (QTc), PR interval, heart rate (HR), blood pressure, and respiration rate during 60 minutes before the administration were compared with 60 minutes after the infusion. We documented any adverse event during and after the infusion. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients completed the study. There was a significant decrease in interictal spikes (P = 0.039) and decreased frequency of the alpha rhythm (P = 0.003). No significant difference in beta, theta, and delta frequency or amount was noted. There were significant increases in PR interval (153.4-155.8 ms, P = 0.031) and HR (73.4-75.5 bpm, P = 0.022), but QTc, blood pressure, and respiration rate were not affected. Twelve patients (16.9%) experienced transient and mild adverse events, mainly dizziness and leg tingling. More adverse events occurred with 400 mg lacosamide than with the lower doses (P = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous lacosamide is effective in decreasing interictal spikes. Despite a small effect on EEG and electrocardiogram rhythms, it is well tolerated with no serious adverse events.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".