↓ Skip to main content

Lidocaine response rate in aEEG-confirmed neonatal seizures: Retrospective study of 413 full-term and preterm infants

Overview of attention for article published in Epilepsia, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Lidocaine response rate in aEEG-confirmed neonatal seizures: Retrospective study of 413 full-term and preterm infants
Published in
Epilepsia, December 2015
DOI 10.1111/epi.13286
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lauren C. Weeke, Mona C. Toet, Linda G. M. van Rooij, Floris Groenendaal, Geraldine B. Boylan, Ronit M. Pressler, Lena Hellström-Westas, Marcel P. H. van den Broek, Linda S. de Vries

Abstract

To investigate the seizure response rate to lidocaine in a large cohort of infants who received lidocaine as second- or third-line antiepileptic drug (AED) for neonatal seizures. Full-term (n = 319) and preterm (n = 94) infants, who received lidocaine for neonatal seizures confirmed on amplitude-integrated EEG (aEEG), were studied retrospectively (January 1992-December 2012). Based on aEEG findings, the response was defined as good (>4 h no seizures, no need for rescue medication); intermediate (0-2 h no seizures, but rescue medication needed after 2-4 h); or no clear response (rescue medication needed <2 h). Lidocaine had a good or intermediate effect in 71.4%. The response rate was significantly lower in preterm (55.3%) than in full-term infants (76.1%, p < 0.001). In full-term infants the response to lidocaine was significantly better than midazolam as second-line AED (21.4% vs. 12.7%, p = 0.049), and there was a trend for a higher response rate as third-line AED (67.6% vs. 57%, p = 0.086). Both lidocaine and midazolam had a higher response rate as third-line AED than as second-line AED (p < 0.001). Factors associated with a good response to lidocaine were the following: higher gestational age, longer time between start of first seizure and administration of lidocaine, lidocaine as third-line AED, use of new lidocaine regimens, diagnosis of stroke, use of digital aEEG, and hypothermia. Multivariable analysis of seizure response to lidocaine included lidocaine as second- or third-line AED and seizure etiology. Seizure response to lidocaine was seen in ~70%. The response rate was influenced by gestational age, underlying etiology, and timing of administration. Lidocaine had a significantly higher response rate than midazolam as second-line AED, and there was a trend for a higher response rate as third-line AED. Both lidocaine and midazolam had a higher response rate as third-line compared to second-line AED, which could be due to a pharmacologic synergistic mechanism between the two drugs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 19%
Student > Postgraduate 9 13%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 53%
Neuroscience 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Psychology 3 4%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 15 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 August 2016.
All research outputs
#11,788,380
of 20,547,579 outputs
Outputs from Epilepsia
#3,657
of 5,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,723
of 396,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Epilepsia
#38
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,547,579 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,012 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 396,571 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.