Lacosamide (LCM) is a treatment option for status epilepticus (SE) described in several series. We therefore proposed to describe its use in status epilepticus patients in our hospital. All patients admitted to our hospital for SE from September 2010 to April 2012 were evaluated. We collected related variables including the type of SE, etiology, antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) used, loading dose of AEDs, cessation of SE after AEDs, ICU admission and mortality. In those patients receiving LCM, we reviewed the infusion rate and time to response. We compared patients receiving LCM with patients in whom it was not used. This was a retrospective and uncontrolled study. A total of 92 patients were included; 67.7 % of SE patients who received LCM responded to treatment. The vast majority of the patients presented non-convulsive and motor focal SE. When we selected patients to receive four or more AEDs, the LCM efficacy was 55.6 %, a very similar result compared to when it was not used. Subsequently, we analyzed the sample regarding the AED administered as the second or third line of treatment, and the responder rate was significantly higher when LCM was used (84.6 vs. 47.8 %, p 0.041). After an adjusted regression analysis, the use of LCM was independently associated with cessation of SE. The total percentage of undesirable effects was very low (12 %), and they were all mild. No relationship was found between a specific etiology and better response. LCM is a useful drug that represents an alternative in the treatment of non-convulsive or focal motor SE. Its efficacy might be more important when it is administered as a second or third option after benzodiazepines. A randomized trial is required to confirm these results.

No abstract

Background and aims Retinal sensitivity (RS) and gaze fixation (GF) assessed by retinal microperimetry are useful and complementary tools for identifying mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The hypothesis is that RS and GF examine different neural circuits: RS depends only on the visual pathway while GF reflects white matter complex connectivity networks. The aim of the study is to shed light to this issue by examining the relationship of these two parameters with visual evoked potentials (VEP), the current gold standard to examine the visual pathway. Materials and methods Consecutive T2D patients > 65 years were recruited from the outpatient clinic. Retinal microperimetry (MAIA 3rd generation) and visual evoked potentials (VEP) (Nicolet Viking ED). RS (dB), GF (BCEA63%, BCEA95%) (MAIA) and VEP (Latency P100ms, Amplitude75–100 uV) were analyzed. Results Thirty three patients (45% women, 72.1 ± 4.6 years) were included. VEP parameters significantly correlated with RS but not with GF. Conclusions These results confirm that RS but not GF depends on the visual pathway, reinforcing the concept that they are complementary diagnostic tools. Used together can further increase the value of microperimetry as screening test for identifying T2D population with cognitive impairment.

No abstract

No abstract