Cited by 33Epilepsy research and treatmentPharmacological Effects and Toxicity StudiesNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

Effect of intracerebroventricular continuous infusion of valproic acid versus single i.p. and i.c.v. injections in the amygdala kindling epilepsy model

Serralta, Alfonso, Barcia, Juan A., Ortiz, Pedro, Durán, Carmen, Hernández, M. Eugenia, Alós, Manuel·2006·Epilepsy Research

Abstract

Two protocols were tested to assess anticonvulsant efficacy and drug concentrations after intracerebroventricular (i.c.v.) continuous valproic acid (VPA) infusion, as compared with acute injections in the kindling epilepsy model. Protocol 1: amygdala-kindled rats were injected via intraperitoneal (i.p.) and i.c.v. routes with varying doses of VPA and tested for seizure intensity, afterdischarge and seizure duration, ataxia and sedation. Concentrations of VPA were determined by immunofluorescence in the brain, plasma, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and liver in matching rats. Protocol 2: amygdala-kindled rats were implanted with osmotic minipumps containing a VPA solution in saline and connected to intraventricular catheters for 7 days. Seizure threshold, latency and duration, afterdischarge duration, ataxia and sedation were recorded daily before, during, and until 5 days after VPA infusion. In matching animals, CSF, brain, plasma and liver VPA concentration was determined. Acute i.c.v. VPA injection suppressed seizures with a remarkable ataxia and sedation. However, continuous i.c.v. infusion controlled generalised and even focal seizures without producing important side effects, high plasma levels or hepatic drug concentrations. In conclusion, continuous i.c.v. VPA infusion may protect against kindled seizures by minimising ataxia and sedation, and achieving suitable intracerebral, yet low plasma or hepatic drug concentrations, thus avoiding potential systemic toxicity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2006.02.003

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Serralta, A., Barcia, J. A., Ortiz, P., Durán, C., Hernández, M. E., & Alós, M.
Affiliations
  • Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe (ES)
  • Hospital General Universitario De Valencia (ES)
Corresponding author
Barcia, Juan A.
Venue
Epilepsy Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-07
Volume
70
Issue
1
Pages
15-26
ISSN
0920-1211 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2059505070
Cited by
33
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Epilepsy Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Epilepsy research and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmacological Effects and Toxicity Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Keywords
valproic acid, amygdala kindling, intracerebroventricular infusion, osmotic minipump, anticonvulsant efficacy, afterdischarge, seizure threshold, drug concentration distribution, cerebrospinal fluid, systemic toxicity
MeSH terms
Amygdala, Animals, Anticonvulsants, Cerebral Ventricles, Disease Models, Animal, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Epilepsy, Infusions, Parenteral, Injections, Intraventricular, Kindling, Neurologic, Male, Valproic Acid, Rats, Wistar, Rats

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review