» Articles » PMID: 15001403

A Comparison of Phenytoin-loading Techniques in the Emergency Department

Overview
Journal Acad Emerg Med
Publisher Wiley
Specialty Emergency Medicine
Date 2004 Mar 6
PMID 15001403
Citations 15
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: To compare the effectivenesses of three phenytoin-loading techniques.

Methods: Patients with subtherapeutic phenytoin concentrations who presented within 48 hours of a seizure were randomized to receive either 20 mg/kg of oral phenytoin (PO), divided in maximum doses of 400 mg every two hours, 18 mg/kg of intravenous phenytoin (IVP) at an initial infusion rate of 50 mg/min, or 18 mg/kg (phenytoin equivalents) of intravenous fosphenytoin (IVF) at an initial infusion rate of 150 mg/min.

Results: A total of 45 patients were enrolled: 16 in the PO group, 14 in the IVP group, and 15 in the IVF group. The times required to reach therapeutic drug concentrations were (mean +/- standard deviation [SD]) 5.62 +/- 0.28 hours, 0.24 +/- 0.3 hours, and 0.21 +/- 0.28 hours, respectively. A total of 17, 27, and 32 adverse drug events were observed in the PO, IVP, and IVF groups, respectively, with significantly fewer events in the PO group (p = 0.02, p = 0.01). No significant difference was found between the numbers of necessary adjustments to the infusions in the two IV groups. The average time to safe emergency department discharge was significantly shorter for the IV groups compared with the PO group (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Oral loading has fewer adverse drug events than either IV loading method, but its use may be limited when therapeutic concentrations are required quickly. Although IVF loading is faster, from an adverse-drug event perspective, no advantage of IVF over IVP was apparent.

Citing Articles

Black-Box Warnings of Antiseizure Medications: What is Inside the Box?.

Wahab A, Iqbal A Pharmaceut Med. 2023; 37(3):233-250.

PMID: 37119452 DOI: 10.1007/s40290-023-00475-x.


Levetiracetam versus fosphenytoin as a second-line treatment after diazepam for adult convulsive status epilepticus: a multicentre non-inferiority randomised control trial.

Nakamura K, Marushima A, Takahashi Y, Mochizuki M, Kimura A, Fukuda Y J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2022; 94(1):42-48.

PMID: 36207063 PMC: 9763167. DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2022-329485.


Levetiracetam versus fosphenytoin as a second-line treatment after diazepam for status epilepticus: study protocol for a multicenter non-inferiority designed randomized control trial.

Nakamura K, Marushima A, Takahashi Y, Kimura A, Asami M, Egawa S Trials. 2021; 22(1):317.

PMID: 33934714 PMC: 8091776. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-021-05269-7.


Levetiracetam vs. Fosphenytoin for Second-Line Treatment of Status Epilepticus: Propensity Score Matching Analysis Using a Nationwide Inpatient Database.

Nakamura K, Ohbe H, Matsui H, Takahashi Y, Marushima A, Inoue Y Front Neurol. 2020; 11:615.

PMID: 32719650 PMC: 7348044. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2020.00615.


Changes in Real-world Practice Patterns of Antiepileptic Drugs for Status Epilepticus: A Nationwide Observational Study in Japan.

Nakamura K, Ohbe H, Matsui H, Takahashi Y, Marushima A, Inoue Y Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2020; 60(3):156-163.

PMID: 32009125 PMC: 7073701. DOI: 10.2176/nmc.oa.2019-0225.