![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
Abstract
Objective: Prophylactic antiseizure drugs (PAD) are commonly prescribed for non-traumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) despite limited evidence for this indication. We sought to determine the current prescribing patterns of the use of a PAD for ICH.
Methods: A 36-item survey was distributed to physicians who manage ICH patients soliciting details of PAD prescription in their practice.
Results: A total of 199 physicians responded to the survey, all of who manage 50 or more ICH patients per year. The respondents were neurologists (32%), neurosurgeons (11%), and intensivists (57%) in academia (69%) and private practice (31%). Prophylactic antiseizure drugs prescriptions used: never (33%), 1–33% (35%), 34–66% (14%), 67–99% (9%) of the time, or always (9%). Most respondents performed electroencephalographic and serum level monitoring in at least some patients. Levetiracetam was used most often (60%), followed by fosphenytoin (37%), for a usual duration of days (36%), weeks (47%), or months (17%). Prophylactic antiseizure drugs prescription varied by patient characteristics and physician specialty. Perception of physician community consensus regarding PAD use for ICH among respondents ranged from strongly (7%) or weakly (23%) against the practice, to a fairly equal division of opinion (41%), to weakly (27%) or strongly (4%) in favor of the practice.
Conclusions: We found variability of multiple aspects of the current prescribing patterns and opinions regarding the use of a PAD for ICH. This variability is likely secondary to insufficient data. Clinical equipoise exists for this issue, and controlled trials would be both justified and useful.