...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences >Efficacy of intermittent prophylaxis vis a vis no prophylactic interventions in febrile seizure recurrence: randomised controlled trail
【24h】

Efficacy of intermittent prophylaxis vis a vis no prophylactic interventions in febrile seizure recurrence: randomised controlled trail

机译：间歇性预防对无热性惊厥复发的预防性干预效果：随机对照

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Background: To compare efficacy of intermittent prophylaxis during subsequent febrile episodes with antipyretics alone or antipyretics with anticonvulsant (clobazam) vis a vis no prophylactic interventions except need-based antipyretic measures in preventing recurrence of febrile seizures. Methods: This prospective randomized controlled interventional study was carried out in neurologically normal children. Study conducted over 14 months (March 2014 - May 2015), tertiary care hospital Mumbai. Inclusion criteria was, children aged from 6 month to 5 years with history of simple febrile seizure, lasting for less than 15 minutes, with Frequency less than one episode in 24 hours. Children with history of afebrile or complex febrile seizure, CNS comorbidity, family history of epilepsy, abnormal electroencephalogram, Unwillingness or non-feasibility of follow up were excluded from study. The patients were randomly grouped in A (No Prophylaxis n= 60), B (Antipyretic prophylaxis n=57) and C (Antipyretics + clobazam prophylaxis n=55). All cases were followed up telephonically every 15 days from date of first seizure as well as personal follow up at 1,3,6 months either in the hospital or at home. End point of study was taken as six months of follow-up from enrolment or lost-to-follow up. Efficacy of intervention was compared using chi-square test, Pearson chi-square test with/without Yates continuity correction and/or Fisher exact test, with p value of 0.05 as test of significance. Results: Sixty cases in group A developed febrile episodes and 6 of them developed recurrence of febrile seizures, with a recurrence rate of 10% among total cases and 9.67% among all febrile episodes. Recurrence rate was significantly higher (10%) in cases who did not receive any prophylactic intervention (Group A) as compared to pooled recurrence rate in group B and C together 1.78% (p=0.022). Conclusion: Regular antipyretic prophylaxis, alone or along with clobazam does not reduce the risk of recurrence in simple febrile seizures as compared to those who receive antipyretic intervention.
机译：背景：为了比较在随后的高热发作期间间歇性预防与单独使用退热药或联合抗惊厥药（克洛az嗪）的退热药的疗效，除需要基于预防性退热措施预防高热惊厥复发外，无预防措施。方法：这项前瞻性随机对照干预研究是在神经系统正常儿童中进行的。在孟买三级护理医院进行了为期14个月（2014年3月至2015年5月）的研究。纳入标准为6个月至5岁的儿童有单纯性高热惊厥史，持续时间少于15分钟，频率在24小时内少于1次。有高热或复杂性高热惊厥史，中枢神经系统合并症，癫痫家族史，脑电图异常，不愿或无法进行随访的儿童被排除在研究之外。将患者随机分组为A（无预防，n = 60），B（解热预防，n = 57）和C（退热药物+氯巴沙姆预防，n = 55）。从首次发作之日起，每隔15天对所有病例进行电话随访，并在医院或家中进行1,3,6个月的个人随访。研究的终点是入组或随访失败后六个月的随访。使用卡方检验，有/无Yates连续性校正的皮尔逊卡方检验和/或费舍尔精确检验比较干预效果，p值<0.05为显着性检验。结果：A组60例出现高热发作，其中6例出现高热惊厥复发，总病例的复发率为10％，所有高热发作的复发率为9.67％。没有接受任何预防性干预的患者（A组）的复发率显着更高（10％），而B组和C组的合并复发率合计为1.78％（p = 0.022）。结论：与接受退烧干预的患者相比，常规的退烧预防措施（单独或与氯巴沙姆合用）不会降低单纯性高热惊厥发作的复发风险。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号