A pragmatic approach to intravenous anaesthetics and electroencephalographic endpoints for the treatment of refractory and super-refractory status epilepticus in critical care.

Status epilepticus is a common neurological emergency, with overall mortality around 20%. Over half of cases are first time presentations of seizures. The pathological process by which spontaneous seizures are generated arises from an imbalance in excitatory and inhibitory neuronal networks, which if unchecked, can result in alterations in intracellular signalling pathways and electrolyte shifts, which bring about changes in the blood brain barrier, neuronal cell death and eventually cerebral atrophy. This narrative review focusses on the treatment of status epilepticus in adults. Anaesthetic agents interrupt neuronal activity by enhancing inhibitory or decreasing excitatory transmission, primarily via GABA and NMDA receptors. Intravenous anaesthetic agents are commonly used as second or third line drugs in the treatment of refractory status epilepticus, but the optimal timing and choice of anaesthetic drug has not yet been established by high quality evidence. Titration of antiepileptic and anaesthetic drugs in critically ill patients presents a particular challenge, due to alterations in drug absorbtion and metabolism as well as changes in drug distrubution, which arise from fluid shifts and altered protein binding. Furthermore, side effects associated with prolonged infusions of anaesthetic drugs can lead to multi-organ dysfunction and a need for critical care support. Electroencelography can identify patterns of burst suppression, which may be a target to guide weaning of intravenous therapy. Continuous elctroencephalography has the potential to directly impact clinical care, but despite its utility, major barriers exist which have limited its widespread use in clinical practice. A flow chart outlining the timing and dosage of anaesthetic agents used at our institution is provided.

Barriers and facilitators to screening and treating malnutrition in older adults living in the community: a mixed-methods synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition (specifically undernutrition) in older, community-dwelling adults reduces well-being and predisposes to disease. Implementation of screen-and-treat policies could help to systematically detect and treat at-risk and malnourished patients. We aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing malnutrition screen and treat policies in primary/community care, which barriers have been addressed and which facilitators have been successfully incorporated in existing interventions. METHOD: A data-base search was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, DARE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 2012 to June 2016 to identify relevant qualitative and quantitative literature from primary/community care. Studies were included if participants were older, community-dwelling adults (65+) or healthcare professionals who would screen and treat such patients. Barriers and facilitators were extracted and mapped onto intervention features to determine whether these had addressed barriers. RESULTS: Of a total of 2182 studies identified, 21 were included (6 qualitative, 12 quantitative and 3 mixed; 14 studies targeting patients and 7 targeting healthcare professionals). Facilitators addressing a wide range of barriers were identified, yet few interventions addressed psychosocial barriers to screen-and-treat policies for patients, such as loneliness and reluctance to be screened, or healthcare professionals' reservations about prescribing oral nutritional supplements. CONCLUSION: The studies reviewed identified several barriers and facilitators and addressed some of these in intervention design, although a prominent gap appeared to be psychosocial barriers. No single included study addressed all barriers or made use of all facilitators, although this appears to be possible. Interventions aiming to implement screen-and-treat approaches to malnutrition in primary care should consider barriers that both patients and healthcare professionals may face. REVIEW REGISTRATIONS: PROSPERO: CRD42017071398 . The review protocol was registered retrospectively.