Safety and Efficiency of Intravenous Push Lacosamide Administration

K. Erin Davidson, Joshua Newell, Khalid Alsherbini, Joseph Krushinski, G. Morgan Jones

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background/objective: Intravenous (IV) lacosamide use for status epilepticus has increased in recent years and is recommended for refractory status epilepticus by current guidelines. Per the lacosamide package labeling, the preferred route of administration is diluted and infused over 30–60 min; however, administration undiluted is also acceptable and recent literature demonstrated safety at a maximum rate of 80 mg per minute (Kellinghaus et al. in Acta Neurol Scand 123:137–141, 2011). Undiluted administration as an IV push has potential to increase efficiency of administration to patients needing urgent seizure control since it may be dispensed from automatic dispensing cabinets in patient care areas. This study aims to compare safety outcomes and efficiency of administration in patients receiving lacosamide IV push compared to IV piggyback. Methods: We present a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients receiving lacosamide via IV piggyback or IV push from June 2016 to July 2017. Baseline characteristics, data related to potential safety concerns and timing of ordering, verification, and administration were collected. The primary safety outcomes were incidence of infusion site reactions, hypotension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] < 90 mm Hg), and bradycardia (heart rate [HR] < 50 beats per minute) documented within 2 h of each lacosamide dose. Secondary safety outcomes included the incidence of PR interval prolongation in patients with at least one electrocardiogram measured. The primary efficiency outcome was the time between order verification and administration. Results: Patients in the IV piggyback (n = 88) and IV push (n = 78) groups had similar baseline characteristics, initial dose, SBP, and HR. Hypotension (8 vs. 10.3%) and bradycardia (2.3 vs. 2.6%) rates were similar among both groups (p > 0.05). Only one patient in each group had documented PR prolongation, and no documented infusion reactions occurred. Median time from order verification to administration was significantly reduced in the IV push group (35 min vs. 1 h 49 min; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Administration of lacosamide via IV push results in similar adverse effect rates to IV piggyback preparations with more efficient time to administration.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)491-495
Number of pages5
JournalNeurocritical Care
Volume29
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2018

Fingerprint

Safety
Status Epilepticus
Blood Pressure
Intravenous Administration
Hypotension
Patient Care
Seizures
Cohort Studies
Retrospective Studies
lacosamide
Guidelines
Incidence

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

Safety and Efficiency of Intravenous Push Lacosamide Administration. / Davidson, K. Erin; Newell, Joshua; Alsherbini, Khalid; Krushinski, Joseph; Jones, G. Morgan.

In: Neurocritical Care, Vol. 29, No. 3, 01.12.2018, p. 491-495.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Davidson, K. Erin ; Newell, Joshua ; Alsherbini, Khalid ; Krushinski, Joseph ; Jones, G. Morgan. / Safety and Efficiency of Intravenous Push Lacosamide Administration. In: Neurocritical Care. 2018 ; Vol. 29, No. 3. pp. 491-495.
@article{bc35cb8da1ff4fcabf2a8edba42fb813,
title = "Safety and Efficiency of Intravenous Push Lacosamide Administration",
abstract = "Background/objective: Intravenous (IV) lacosamide use for status epilepticus has increased in recent years and is recommended for refractory status epilepticus by current guidelines. Per the lacosamide package labeling, the preferred route of administration is diluted and infused over 30–60 min; however, administration undiluted is also acceptable and recent literature demonstrated safety at a maximum rate of 80 mg per minute (Kellinghaus et al. in Acta Neurol Scand 123:137–141, 2011). Undiluted administration as an IV push has potential to increase efficiency of administration to patients needing urgent seizure control since it may be dispensed from automatic dispensing cabinets in patient care areas. This study aims to compare safety outcomes and efficiency of administration in patients receiving lacosamide IV push compared to IV piggyback. Methods: We present a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients receiving lacosamide via IV piggyback or IV push from June 2016 to July 2017. Baseline characteristics, data related to potential safety concerns and timing of ordering, verification, and administration were collected. The primary safety outcomes were incidence of infusion site reactions, hypotension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] < 90 mm Hg), and bradycardia (heart rate [HR] < 50 beats per minute) documented within 2 h of each lacosamide dose. Secondary safety outcomes included the incidence of PR interval prolongation in patients with at least one electrocardiogram measured. The primary efficiency outcome was the time between order verification and administration. Results: Patients in the IV piggyback (n = 88) and IV push (n = 78) groups had similar baseline characteristics, initial dose, SBP, and HR. Hypotension (8 vs. 10.3{\%}) and bradycardia (2.3 vs. 2.6{\%}) rates were similar among both groups (p > 0.05). Only one patient in each group had documented PR prolongation, and no documented infusion reactions occurred. Median time from order verification to administration was significantly reduced in the IV push group (35 min vs. 1 h 49 min; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Administration of lacosamide via IV push results in similar adverse effect rates to IV piggyback preparations with more efficient time to administration.",
author = "Davidson, {K. Erin} and Joshua Newell and Khalid Alsherbini and Joseph Krushinski and Jones, {G. Morgan}",
year = "2018",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s12028-018-0560-6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "29",
pages = "491--495",
journal = "Neurocritical Care",
issn = "1541-6933",
publisher = "Humana Press",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Safety and Efficiency of Intravenous Push Lacosamide Administration

AU - Davidson, K. Erin

AU - Newell, Joshua

AU - Alsherbini, Khalid

AU - Krushinski, Joseph

AU - Jones, G. Morgan

PY - 2018/12/1

Y1 - 2018/12/1

N2 - Background/objective: Intravenous (IV) lacosamide use for status epilepticus has increased in recent years and is recommended for refractory status epilepticus by current guidelines. Per the lacosamide package labeling, the preferred route of administration is diluted and infused over 30–60 min; however, administration undiluted is also acceptable and recent literature demonstrated safety at a maximum rate of 80 mg per minute (Kellinghaus et al. in Acta Neurol Scand 123:137–141, 2011). Undiluted administration as an IV push has potential to increase efficiency of administration to patients needing urgent seizure control since it may be dispensed from automatic dispensing cabinets in patient care areas. This study aims to compare safety outcomes and efficiency of administration in patients receiving lacosamide IV push compared to IV piggyback. Methods: We present a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients receiving lacosamide via IV piggyback or IV push from June 2016 to July 2017. Baseline characteristics, data related to potential safety concerns and timing of ordering, verification, and administration were collected. The primary safety outcomes were incidence of infusion site reactions, hypotension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] < 90 mm Hg), and bradycardia (heart rate [HR] < 50 beats per minute) documented within 2 h of each lacosamide dose. Secondary safety outcomes included the incidence of PR interval prolongation in patients with at least one electrocardiogram measured. The primary efficiency outcome was the time between order verification and administration. Results: Patients in the IV piggyback (n = 88) and IV push (n = 78) groups had similar baseline characteristics, initial dose, SBP, and HR. Hypotension (8 vs. 10.3%) and bradycardia (2.3 vs. 2.6%) rates were similar among both groups (p > 0.05). Only one patient in each group had documented PR prolongation, and no documented infusion reactions occurred. Median time from order verification to administration was significantly reduced in the IV push group (35 min vs. 1 h 49 min; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Administration of lacosamide via IV push results in similar adverse effect rates to IV piggyback preparations with more efficient time to administration.

AB - Background/objective: Intravenous (IV) lacosamide use for status epilepticus has increased in recent years and is recommended for refractory status epilepticus by current guidelines. Per the lacosamide package labeling, the preferred route of administration is diluted and infused over 30–60 min; however, administration undiluted is also acceptable and recent literature demonstrated safety at a maximum rate of 80 mg per minute (Kellinghaus et al. in Acta Neurol Scand 123:137–141, 2011). Undiluted administration as an IV push has potential to increase efficiency of administration to patients needing urgent seizure control since it may be dispensed from automatic dispensing cabinets in patient care areas. This study aims to compare safety outcomes and efficiency of administration in patients receiving lacosamide IV push compared to IV piggyback. Methods: We present a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients receiving lacosamide via IV piggyback or IV push from June 2016 to July 2017. Baseline characteristics, data related to potential safety concerns and timing of ordering, verification, and administration were collected. The primary safety outcomes were incidence of infusion site reactions, hypotension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] < 90 mm Hg), and bradycardia (heart rate [HR] < 50 beats per minute) documented within 2 h of each lacosamide dose. Secondary safety outcomes included the incidence of PR interval prolongation in patients with at least one electrocardiogram measured. The primary efficiency outcome was the time between order verification and administration. Results: Patients in the IV piggyback (n = 88) and IV push (n = 78) groups had similar baseline characteristics, initial dose, SBP, and HR. Hypotension (8 vs. 10.3%) and bradycardia (2.3 vs. 2.6%) rates were similar among both groups (p > 0.05). Only one patient in each group had documented PR prolongation, and no documented infusion reactions occurred. Median time from order verification to administration was significantly reduced in the IV push group (35 min vs. 1 h 49 min; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Administration of lacosamide via IV push results in similar adverse effect rates to IV piggyback preparations with more efficient time to administration.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85048363022&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85048363022&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s12028-018-0560-6

DO - 10.1007/s12028-018-0560-6

M3 - Article

VL - 29

SP - 491

EP - 495

JO - Neurocritical Care

JF - Neurocritical Care

SN - 1541-6933

IS - 3

ER -