Neurointensivmedizin und COVID-19 Neurointensive care medicine and COVID-19

Die vorliegende Übersichtsarbeit fasst wichtige Erkenntnisse der Schnittstellen Corona-virus-disease-2019(COVID-19)-Pandemie und Neurologie mit Fokus auf Neurointensivmedizin zusammen. Insbesondere werden auf Prävalenz, Pathomechanismen und Auswirkungen neurologischer Manifestationen eingegangen. Die häufigsten Manifestationen schwer kranker Intensivpatienten sind zerebrovaskuläre Komplikationen, Enzephalopathien und die „intensive care unit-acquired weakness" (ICUAW). Ein direkter, neurodestruktiver Effekt durch das Virus an sich konnte bisher nicht sicher nachgewiesen werden. Vielmehr kommen ursächlich durch die virale Infektion ausgelöste systemische inflammatorische Prozesse sowie Nebenwirkungen der intensivmedizinischen Therapie infrage. Die Auswirkungen der Pandemie auf Patienten mit neurologischen Erkrankungen und die Neurointensivmedizin sind weitreichend, aber noch nicht ausreichend untersucht.

[Neurointensive care medicine and COVID-19]. / Neurointensivmedizin und COVID-19.

This review article summarizes important findings on the interfaces between the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and neurology with an emphasis of the implications for neurointensive care medicine. More specifically, the prevalence, pathomechanisms and impact of neurological manifestations are reported. The most common neurological manifestations of critically ill COVID-19 patients are cerebrovascular complications, encephalopathies and intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICUAW). A relevant direct pathophysiological effect by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) itself has not yet been established with certainty. In fact, indirect systemic inflammatory processes triggered by the viral infection and side effects of intensive care treatment are much more likely to cause the reported sequelae. The impact of the pandemic on patients with neurological disorders and neurointensive care medicine is far-reaching but not yet sufficiently studied.

Online medical history taking course: Opportunities and limitations in comparison to traditional bedside teaching Online-Anamnesekurs: Chancen und Einschränkungen im Vergleich zum traditionellen Unterricht am Krankenbett

Objective: Obtaining a systematic medical history (MH) from a patient is a core competency in medical education and plays a vital role in the diagnosis of diseases. At the Faculty of Medicine at LMU Munich, students have their first course in MH taking during their second year. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the traditional bedside MH taking course had to be transformed into an online course (OC). Our objectives were to implement an online MH taking course, to evaluate its feasibility and to compare the evaluation results to a historic cohort that had undertaken the traditional bedside teaching course (BTC). Methods: 874 second-year students participated in the OC (BTC=827). After teaching the theoretical background via asynchronous online lectures, students participated in a practical exercise with fellow students using the video communication platform Zoom where they were able to practice taking a MH on the basis of fictitious, text-based patient cases. Students were then asked to evaluate the course through a standardized online survey with 31 questions on teaching quality and self-perceived learning success, which had also been used in previous years. The survey results were compared to the results of the historic cohort using the Mann-Whitney U test. Results: A total of n=162 students (18.5%) evaluated the OC. In the historic cohort, n=252 (30.5%) completed the survey. 85.3% of the OC respondents thought that the atmosphere during the practical exercise was productive and 83.0% greatly appreciated the flexibility in terms of time management. Moreover, they appreciated the online resources as well as having the opportunity to undertake a MH taking course during the COVID-19 pandemic. 27.7% of the respondents thought that traditional BTCs should be supplemented through more online activities in the future. With respect to the ability of independently taking a MH upon completion of the course, the OC was rated significantly lower relative to the BTC (mean OC=2.4, SD=±1.1 vs. mean BTC=1.9, SD=±1.1 (1=strongly agree;5=strongly disagree);p<0.0001). Conclusion: OCs are a feasible format and seem to convey the theory and practical implementation in a peer-exercise format of MH taking to medical students. The theoretical background can be acquired with great flexibility. Nevertheless, the students’ self-appraisal suggested that the traditional teaching format was more effective at teaching MH taking skills. Thus, we propose a blended learning concept, combining elements of both formats. In this context, we suggest prospective, randomized trials to evaluate blended learning approaches.

Online medical history taking course: Opportunities and limitations in comparison to traditional bedside teaching.

Objective: Obtaining a systematic medical history (MH) from a patient is a core competency in medical education and plays a vital role in the diagnosis of diseases. At the Faculty of Medicine at LMU Munich, students have their first course in MH taking during their second year. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the traditional bedside MH taking course had to be transformed into an online course (OC). Our objectives were to implement an online MH taking course, to evaluate its feasibility and to compare the evaluation results to a historic cohort that had undertaken the traditional bedside teaching course (BTC). Methods: 874 second-year students participated in the OC (BTC=827). After teaching the theoretical background via asynchronous online lectures, students participated in a practical exercise with fellow students using the video communication platform Zoom where they were able to practice taking a MH on the basis of fictitious, text-based patient cases. Students were then asked to evaluate the course through a standardized online survey with 31 questions on teaching quality and self-perceived learning success, which had also been used in previous years. The survey results were compared to the results of the historic cohort using the Mann-Whitney U test. Results: A total of n=162 students (18.5%) evaluated the OC. In the historic cohort, n=252 (30.5%) completed the survey. 85.3% of the OC respondents thought that the atmosphere during the practical exercise was productive and 83.0% greatly appreciated the flexibility in terms of time management. Moreover, they appreciated the online resources as well as having the opportunity to undertake a MH taking course during the COVID-19 pandemic. 27.7% of the respondents thought that traditional BTCs should be supplemented through more online activities in the future. With respect to the ability of independently taking a MH upon completion of the course, the OC was rated significantly lower relative to the BTC (mean OC=2.4, SD=±1.1 vs. mean BTC=1.9, SD=±1.1 (1=strongly agree; 5=strongly disagree); p<0.0001). Conclusion: OCs are a feasible format and seem to convey the theory and practical implementation in a peer-exercise format of MH taking to medical students. The theoretical background can be acquired with great flexibility. Nevertheless, the students' self-appraisal suggested that the traditional teaching format was more effective at teaching MH taking skills. Thus, we propose a blended learning concept, combining elements of both formats. In this context, we suggest prospective, randomized trials to evaluate blended learning approaches.

Neurologic manifestations of COVID-19 in critically ill patients: results of the prospective multicenter registry PANDEMIC.

BACKGROUND: Neurologic manifestations are increasingly reported in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Yet, data on prevalence, predictors and relevance for outcome of neurological manifestations in patients requiring intensive care are scarce. We aimed to characterize prevalence, risk factors and impact on outcome of neurologic manifestations in critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: In the prospective, multicenter, observational registry study PANDEMIC (Pooled Analysis of Neurologic DisordErs Manifesting in Intensive care of COVID-19), we enrolled COVID-19 patients with neurologic manifestations admitted to 19 German intensive care units (ICU) between April 2020 and September 2021. We performed descriptive and explorative statistical analyses. Multivariable models were used to investigate factors associated with disorder categories and their underlying diagnoses as well as to identify predictors of outcome. RESULTS: Of the 392 patients included in the analysis, 70.7% (277/392) were male and the mean age was 65.3 (SD ± 3.1) years. During the study period, a total of 2681 patients with COVID-19 were treated at the ICUs of 15 participating centers. New neurologic disorders were identified in 350 patients, reported by these centers, suggesting a prevalence of COVID-19-associated neurologic disorders of 12.7% among COVID-19 ICU patients. Encephalopathy (46.2%; 181/392), cerebrovascular (41.0%; 161/392) and neuromuscular disorders (20.4%; 80/392) were the most frequent categories identified. Out of 35 cerebrospinal fluid analyses with reverse transcriptase PCR for SARS-COV-2, only 3 were positive. In-hospital mortality was 36.0% (140/389), and functional outcome (mRS 3 to 5) of surviving patients was poor at hospital discharge in 70.9% (161/227). Intracerebral hemorrhage (OR 6.2, 95% CI 2.5-14.9, p < 0.001) and acute ischemic stroke (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.9-8.2, p < 0.001) were the strongest predictors of poor outcome among the included patients. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this well-characterized COVID-19 ICU cohort, that comprised 12.7% of all severe ill COVID-19 patients, neurologic manifestations increase mortality and morbidity. Since no reliable evidence of direct viral affection of the nervous system by COVID-19 could be found, these neurologic manifestations may for a great part be indirect para- or postinfectious sequelae of the infection or severe critical illness. Neurologic ICU complications should be actively searched for and treated.

COVID-19 and Intracranial Hemorrhage: A Multicenter Case Series, Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) profoundly impacts hemostasis and microvasculature. In the light of the dilemma between thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications, in the present paper, we systematically investigate the prevalence, mortality, radiological subtypes, and clinical characteristics of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients. METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we performed a systematic review of the literature by screening the PubMed database and included patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and concomitant ICH. We performed a pooled analysis, including a prospectively collected cohort of critically ill COVID-19 patients with ICH, as part of the PANDEMIC registry (Pooled Analysis of Neurologic Disorders Manifesting in Intensive Care of COVID-19). RESULTS: Our literature review revealed a total of 217 citations. After the selection process, 79 studies and a total of 477 patients were included. The median age was 58.8 years. A total of 23.3% of patients experienced the critical stage of COVID-19, 62.7% of patients were on anticoagulation and 27.5% of the patients received ECMO. The prevalence of ICH was at 0.85% and the mortality at 52.18%, respectively. CONCLUSION: ICH in COVID-19 patients is rare, but it has a very poor prognosis. Different subtypes of ICH seen in COVID-19, support the assumption of heterogeneous and multifaceted pathomechanisms contributing to ICH in COVID-19. Further clinical and pathophysiological investigations are warranted to resolve the conflict between thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications in the future.

Coincidental SARS-CoV-2 infection and mRNA vaccination: a case report addressing the most important clinical questions.

The case describes the coincidental mRNA vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection of a 31-year-old physician addressing the theoretical considerations and recommendations for further actions in such a particular constellation that we will expect more often in the near future.

Survey of German medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic: attitudes toward volunteering versus compulsory service and associated factors.

Due to the spread of COVID-19, a key challenge was to reduce potential staff shortages in the healthcare sector. Besides recruiting retired healthcare workers, medical students were considered to support this task. Commitment of medical students in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic was evaluated using an online survey, with particular focus on their burdens and anxieties. This survey was distributed to students within a 2-week period in April and May 2020. Ultimately, 1241 participants were included in the analysis. During the pandemic, 67.9% (65.3% to 70.5%) of the participants reported that they had volunteered. Furthermore, 88.9% (86.9% to 90.5%) stated that they were against compulsory recruitment in this context. Students who volunteered (committed students) had a significantly lower anxiety index than non-committed students. Additionally, students were more concerned about infecting other patients and relatives than themselves. Higher levels of anxiety were related to lower levels of commitment. A mandatory assignment during the pandemic was rejected by the students and does not seem to be necessary due to the large number of volunteers.

Management lessons through an interactive online discussion about hospital management during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: In light of the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting demand for innovative hospital management we organized an interactive online discussion for medical students and healthcare professionals about hospital management during the crisis. Objective: The event offered an opportunity to learn from a hospital crisis management. We looked at how this new online format compares to a traditional discussion event. Methods: We used an online platform with four guests, a moderator and about 100 attendees. During the event we gathered demographic facts through an interactive questionnaire tool and an extensive evaluation afterwards. Results: The event was rated with an overall grade of 1.4 (Likert from 1 to 6, 1 best grade; SD 0.5) and participants agreed that this format should be organized again (1.2; SD 0.5). 70% of audience members preferred the online format of the event. Due to the high volume, only about 30% (total n~35) of the questions posed by the audience were addressed. Conclusion: Firstly, most participants preferred the event to be online, contrary to our expectation. Secondly, the handling of the amount of individual questions posed significant challenges. Finally, the number of attendees and questions suggested a continuing demand among students and physicians for further education regarding hospital management, especially regarding COVID-19. These findings also require a critical look at future formats and topics of podium discussions in medical education. The online format might be a good alternative to face-to-face lectures.