ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Neurol.
Sec. Epilepsy
Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fneur.2025.1681483
This article is part of the Research TopicStatus Epilepticus: Current Concepts and Future DirectionsView all articles
Benzodiazepines versus non-benzodiazepine antiseizure medications as first-line agents for status epilepticus: analysis of real word data from a 9-years prospective cohort
Provisionally accepted- 1Innovation, Research and Teaching Service (SABES-ASDAA), Bolzano-Bozen, Italy, Bolzano, Italy
- 2Hospital of Santorso (AULSS-7), Department of Internal Medicine, Santorso, Italy, Santorso, Italy
- 3Neurophysiology Unit and Epilepsy Center, AOU Modena, Italy, Modena, Italy
- 4Universita Politecnica delle Marche Dipartimento di Medicina Sperimentale e Clinica, Ancona, Italy
- 5Department of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Emilia-Romagna, Italy
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Background and Objectives: The treatment of status epilepticus (SE) follows a stepwise approach, with benzodiazepines (BDZ) being the first-line therapy. This study analyzed real-word data on use of BDZ and non-BDZ antiseizure medications (ASMs) in SE treatment over 9-years to evaluate whether non-BDZ given as a first-line treatment affect 30-day mortality and other outcomes. Methods: We included SE cases in patients aged ≥14 years who were prospectively registered at Baggiovara Civil Hospital (Modena, Italy) between September 1, 2013, and October 31, 2021. First-line treatment choices were dichotomized as: i) i.v. BDZ; ii) other ASMs. A multivariate model with logistic regression and an adjusted stepwise method for variables was used. Then, a propensity-score matched analysis was performed to evaluate the independent association between first-line therapy and 30-day mortality and secondary outcomes. Results: 630 patients were included: 73.5% (463/630) received a BDZ as first-line therapy and 26.5% (167/630) were treated with non-BDZ. In the primary analyses of the whole cohort, 30-day mortality was 25.9% and 35.3% in patients receiving BDZ and non-BDZ, respectively (p=0.027). However, multivariate analysis adjusted for potential confounders showed that non-BDZ treatment was not independently associated with increased 30-day mortality. Patients who received BDZ as a first-line treatment had less orotracheal intubation and anesthetics within 24 hours of SE onset; less frequent progression to refractory and super-refractory status epilepticus; less admission to and shorter stay in intensive care units; shorter time to SE cessation. In the propensity cohort (140 patients, mainly non-convulsive SE; NCSE), 30-day mortality was 30.7% (43/140), with no difference between BDZ-treated patients (30%; 21/70) and those who received non-BDZ (31.4%; 22/70) (p=1.000). No difference in secondary outcomes was found, except for a shorter time to SE cessation among BDZ-treated patients. Conclusions: The use of non-BDZ first-line treatment was found to be frequent, approaching 25%. Our propensity-score matching analysis shows that in some patients, mainly with NCSE, the overall prognosis of SE was not affected by first-line use of non-BDZ drugs. In these cases, SE prognosis might only be partially dependent on the first medications administered and could be more influenced by other biological variables.
Keywords: Benzodiazepines, Mortality, prognosis, Propensity Score, Status Epilepticus
Received: 07 Aug 2025; Accepted: 13 Oct 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Brigo, Turcato, Giovannini, Lattanzi, Zaboli, Orlandi, Burani, Taruffi, Affronte and Meletti. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Stefano Meletti, stefano.meletti@unimore.it
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.