Case Report Propofol Infusion Syndrome in Refractory Status Epilepticus: A Case Report and Topical Review

Propofol infusion syndrome (PRIS) is a fatal complication when doses of propofol administration exceed 4 mg/kg/h for more than 48 hours. Propofol overdosage is not uncommon in patients with refractory status epilepticus (RSE). We describe a case of refractory status epilepticus complicated by propofol infusion syndrome and collect from 5 databases all reports of refractory status epilepticus cases that were treated by propofol and developed the syndrome and outline whether refractory status epilepticus treatment with propofol is standardized according to international recommendations, compare it with alternative medications, and discuss how this syndrome can be treated and prevented. A total of 21 patients who developed this syndrome reported arrhythmia in all cases (100%), rhabdomyolysis in 9 cases (42%), lactic acidosis in 13 cases (62%), renal failure in 8 cases (38%), lipemia in 7 cases (33%), and elevated hepatic enzymes in 6 cases (28%). 13 patients died (66%). Propofol is still given in a dosage higher than what is internationally recommended, and new treatment modalities such as renal replacement therapy, blood exchange, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation seem to be promising. In conclusion, propofol should be carefully titrated, the maximal infusion rate needs to be reassessed, and combination of different sedative agents may be considered

Propofol Infusion Syndrome in Refractory Status Epilepticus: A Case Report and Topical Review

Propofol infusion syndrome (PRIS) is a fatal complication when doses of propofol administration exceed 4 mg/kg/h for more than 48 hours. Propofol overdosage is not uncommon in patients with refractory status epilepticus (RSE). We describe a case of refractory status epilepticus complicated by propofol infusion syndrome and collect from 5 databases all reports of refractory status epilepticus cases that were treated by propofol and developed the syndrome and outline whether refractory status epilepticus treatment with propofol is standardized according to international recommendations, compare it with alternative medications, and discuss how this syndrome can be treated and prevented. A total of 21 patients who developed this syndrome reported arrhythmia in all cases (100%), rhabdomyolysis in 9 cases (42%), lactic acidosis in 13 cases (62%), renal failure in 8 cases (38%), lipemia in 7 cases (33%), and elevated hepatic enzymes in 6 cases (28%). 13 patients died (66%). Propofol is still given in a dosage higher than what is internationally recommended, and new treatment modalities such as renal replacement therapy, blood exchange, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation seem to be promising. In conclusion, propofol should be carefully titrated, the maximal infusion rate needs to be reassessed, and combination of different sedative agents may be considered

Pantoprazole in patients at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding in the ICU

BACKGROUND Prophylaxis for gastrointestinal stress ulceration is frequently given to patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), but its risks and benefits are unclear. METHODS In this European, multicenter, parallel-group, blinded trial, we randomly assigned adults who had been admitted to the ICU for an acute condition (i.e., an unplanned admission) and who were at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding to receive 40 mg of intravenous pantoprazole (a proton-pump inhibitor) or placebo daily during the ICU stay. The primary outcome was death by 90 days after randomization. RESULTS A total of 3298 patients were enrolled; 1645 were randomly assigned to the pantoprazole group and 1653 to the placebo group. Data on the primary outcome were available for 3282 patients (99.5%). At 90 days, 510 patients (31.1%) in the pantoprazole group and 499 (30.4%) in the placebo group had died (relative risk, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.13; P=0.76). During the ICU stay, at least one clinically important event (a composite of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, or myocardial ischemia) had occurred in 21.9% of patients assigned to pantoprazole and 22.6% of those assigned to placebo (relative risk, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.11). In the pantoprazole group, 2.5% of patients had clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, as compared with 4.2% in the placebo group. The number of patients with infections or serious adverse reactions and the percentage of days alive without life support within 90 days were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Among adult patients in the ICU who were at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, mortality at 90 days and the number of clinically important events were similar in those assigned to pantoprazole and those assigned to placebo. (Funded by Innovation Fund Denmark and others; SUP-ICU ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02467621.

Pantoprazole in Patients at Risk for Gastrointestinal Bleeding in the ICU

BACKGROUND Prophylaxis for gastrointestinal stress ulceration is frequently given to patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), but its risks and benefits are unclear. METHODS In this European, multicenter, parallel-group, blinded trial, we randomly assigned adults who had been admitted to the ICU for an acute condition (i.e., an unplanned admission) and who were at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding to receive 40 mg of intravenous pantoprazole (a proton-pump inhibitor) or placebo daily during the ICU stay. The primary outcome was death by 90 days after randomization. RESULTS A total of 3298 patients were enrolled; 1645 were randomly assigned to the pantoprazole group and 1653 to the placebo group. Data on the primary outcome were available for 3282 patients (99.5%). At 90 days, 510 patients (31.1%) in the pantoprazole group and 499 (30.4%) in the placebo group had died (relative risk, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.13; P=0.76). During the ICU stay, at least one clinically important event (a composite of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, or myocardial ischemia) had occurred in 21.9% of patients assigned to pantoprazole and 22.6% of those assigned to placebo (relative risk, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.11). In the pantoprazole group, 2.5% of patients had clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, as compared with 4.2% in the placebo group. The number of patients with infections or serious adverse reactions and the percentage of days alive without life support within 90 days were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Among adult patients in the ICU who were at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, mortality at 90 days and the number of clinically important events were similar in those assigned to pantoprazole and those assigned to placebo. (Funded by Innovation Fund Denmark and others; SUP-ICU ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02467621 .)