Evidence Hub

Intensive Intracranial Pressure and Temperature Monitoring May Improve the Outcome of a Young Patient with Severe Cryptogenic New-onset Refractory Status Epilepticus: A Case Report

Mayu Kambe, Yuichi Kubota, Hidenori Ohbushi, Naoyuki Arai, Shinji Hagiwara, Suguru Yokosako, Asami Kikuchi, Mayuko Inazuka et al.

NMC Case Report Journal, 2025

Abstract

As the name implies, new-onset refractory status epilepticus is a condition wherein a pediatric or a young adult patient with no previous history of epilepsy suddenly develops idiopathic, uninterrupted, and difficult-to-control seizure episodes. While different neurosurgical interventions in new-onset refractory status epilepticus have already been reported, they are primarily used for palliation and diagnostic purposes. Here we report a young comatose patient who significantly improved after being subjected to intensive intracranial pressure management. Our patient was a 20-year-old male construction worker who was transferred to our institution after he was managed for 13 days (X day [day of ictus] to X+12 days) at a local hospital as a case of refractory status epilepticus. Since the patient has non-convulsive status epilepticus induced by minor stimuli, despite continuous midazolam administration, a central venous catheter-based percutaneous thermoregulation system was inserted on the day of the transfer (X+13 days), which depressed the temperature to 37°C, effectively suppressing the electrographic seizure to some extent. Moreover, on X+15 days, an intracranial pressure sensor was implanted, and a ventriculostomy was done to control the increased intracranial pressure induced by uncontrolled seizures. Because the seizure episodes ceased on X+22 days, intracranial pressure monitoring was eventually terminated. Four days later (X+26 days), the patient's wakefulness…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free