Provider Experience With the Use of Ketamine for Refractory Status Epilepticus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Refractory status epilepticus (RSE) treated with anesthetic agents can be associated with complications including respiratory depression and hypotension. Ketamine is an emerging RSE treatment, but optimal dosing and timing are unknown. We studied provider attitudes and practices regarding the use of ketamine for RSE. METHODS: A literature review informed the creation of the survey, developed by professionals in epilepsy, pharmacy, and neurocritical care. The survey was distributed to members of the Critical Care EEG Monitoring and Research Consortium, Neurocritical Care Society, American Academy of Neurology Synapse community, American Epilepsy Society, and the Canadian League Against Epilepsy. Descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: There were 109 respondents. First-line agents for RSE were midazolam (53%), propofol (42%), pentobarbital (2%), and ketamine (1%). Reasons for ketamine use included failure of midazolam/propofol to control seizures (81%) or hypotension on another anesthetic (35%). Perceived contraindications included hypertension (37%), elevated intracranial pressure (24%), and heart failure (18%). Perceived benefits included decreased use of vasopressors (53%) and more rapid RSE control when used adjunctively (49%). Routine ketamine users often treated more than 10 RSE cases per year, worked as intensivists or at academic institutions. Of the respondents, 59% found ketamine useful for RSE and 94% were interested in learning more about its use. CONCLUSIONS: Although most participants found ketamine helpful for RSE, it is mainly used as a second-line agent adjunctively with midazolam or propofol. Perceived ketamine benefits included decreased need for hemodynamic support and more rapid seizure control when used in conjunction with other anesthetics. Perceived contraindications centered on cardiac and intracranial pressure concerns.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".