Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
J Neurosurg Anesthesiol ; 2022 Jun 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2161191


INTRODUCTION: Noninvasive neuromonitoring could be a valuable option for bedside assessment of cerebral dysfunction in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). This systematic review aims to investigate the use of noninvasive multimodal neuromonitoring in critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 infection. METHODS: MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases were searched for studies investigating noninvasive neuromonitoring in patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICUs. The monitoring included transcranial Doppler ultrasonography (TCD), the Brain4care Corp. cerebral compliance monitor (B4C), optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD), near infrared spectroscopy, automated pupillometry, and electroencephalography (EEG). RESULTS: Thirty-two studies that investigated noninvasive neuromonitoring techniques in patients with COVID-19 in the ICU were identified from a systematic search of 7001 articles: 1 study investigating TCD, ONSD and pupillometry; 2 studies investigating the B4C device and TCD; 3 studies investigating near infrared spectroscopy and TCD; 4 studies investigating TCD; 1 case series investigating pupillometry, and 21 studies investigating EEG. One hundred and nineteen patients underwent TCD monitoring, 47 pupillometry, 49 ONSD assessment, 50 compliance monitoring with the B4C device, and 900 EEG monitoring. Alterations in cerebral hemodynamics, brain compliance, brain oxygenation, pupillary response, and brain electrophysiological activity were common in patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU; these abnormalities were not clearly associated with worse outcome or the development of new neurological complications. CONCLUSIONS: The use of noninvasive multimodal neuromonitoring in critically ill COVID-19 patients could be considered to facilitate the detection of neurological derangements. Determining whether such findings allow earlier detection of neurological complications or guide appropriate therapy requires additional studies.

Front Med (Lausanne) ; 9: 930217, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1987507


Introduction: Neurological manifestations and complications in coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) patients are frequent. Prior studies suggested a possible association between neurological complications and fatal outcome, as well as the existence of potential modifiable risk factors associated to their occurrence. Therefore, more information is needed regarding the incidence and type of neurological complications, risk factors, and associated outcomes in COVID-19. Methods: This is a pre-planned secondary analysis of the international multicenter observational study of the COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium (which collected data both retrospectively and prospectively from the beginning of COVID-19 pandemic) with the aim to describe neurological complications in critically ill COVID-19 patients and to assess the associated risk factors, and outcomes. Adult patients with confirmed COVID-19, admitted to Intensive Care Unit (ICU) will be considered for this analysis. Data collected in the COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium study includes patients' pre-admission characteristics, comorbidities, severity status, and type and severity of neurological complications. In-hospital mortality and neurological outcome were collected at discharge from ICU, and at 28-days. Ethics and Dissemination: The COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium main study and its amendments have been approved by the Regional Ethics Committee of participating sites. No further approval is required for this secondary analysis. Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12620000421932.

Front Neurol ; 13: 814405, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1834475


Introduction: Neurological complications are frequent in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). The use of non-invasive neuromonitoring in subjects without primary brain injury but with potential neurological derangement is gaining attention outside the intensive care unit (ICU). This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the use of non-invasive multimodal neuromonitoring of the brain in non-critically ill patients with COVID-19 outside the ICU and quantifies the prevalence of abnormal neuromonitoring findings in this population. Methods: A structured literature search was performed in MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and EMBASE to investigate the use of non-invasive neuromonitoring tools, including transcranial doppler (TCD); optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD); near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS); pupillometry; and electroencephalography (EEG) inpatients with COVID-19 outside the ICU. The proportion of non-ICU patients with CVOID-19 and a particular neurological feature at neuromonitoring at the study time was defined as prevalence. Results: A total of 6,593 records were identified through literature searching. Twenty-one studies were finally selected, comprising 368 non-ICU patients, of whom 97 were considered for the prevalence of meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of electroencephalographic seizures, periodic and rhythmic patterns, slow background abnormalities, and abnormal background on EEG was.17 (95% CI 0.04-0.29), 0.42 (95% CI 0.01-0.82), 0.92 (95% CI 0.83-1.01), and.95 (95% CI 0.088-1.09), respectively. No studies investigating NIRS and ONSD outside the ICU were found. The pooled prevalence for abnormal neuromonitoring findings detected using the TCD and pupillometry were incomputable due to insufficient data. Conclusions: Neuromonitoring tools are non-invasive, less expensive, safe, and bedside available tools with a great potential for both diagnosis and monitoring of patients with COVID-19 at risk of brain derangements. However, extensive literature searching reveals that they are rarely used outside critical care settings.Systematic Review Registration:, identifier: CRD42021265617.

Crit Care Med ; 49(12): e1223-e1233, 2021 12 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526199


OBJECTIVES: Stroke has been reported in observational series as a frequent complication of coronavirus disease 2019, but more information is needed regarding stroke prevalence and outcomes. We explored the prevalence and outcomes of acute stroke in an international cohort of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 who required ICU admission. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected database. SETTING: A registry of coronavirus disease 2019 patients admitted to ICUs at over 370 international sites was reviewed for patients diagnosed with acute stroke during their stay. PATIENTS: Patients older than 18 years old with acute coronavirus disease 2019 infection in ICU. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 2,699 patients identified (median age 59 yr; male 65%), 59 (2.2%) experienced acute stroke: 0.7% ischemic, 1.0% hemorrhagic, and 0.5% unspecified type. Systemic anticoagulant use was not associated with any stroke type. The frequency of diabetes, hypertension, and smoking was higher in patients with ischemic stroke than in stroke-free and hemorrhagic stroke patients. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support was more common among patients with hemorrhagic (56%) and ischemic stroke (16%) than in those without stroke (10%). Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients had higher cumulative 90-day probabilities of hemorrhagic (relative risk = 10.5) and ischemic stroke (relative risk = 1.7) versus nonextracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients. Hemorrhagic stroke increased the hazard of death (hazard ratio = 2.74), but ischemic stroke did not-similar to the effects of these stroke types seen in noncoronavirus disease 2019 ICU patients. CONCLUSIONS: In an international registry of ICU patients with coronavirus disease 2019, stroke was infrequent. Hemorrhagic stroke, but not ischemic stroke, was associated with increased mortality. Further, both hemorrhagic stroke and ischemic stroke were associated with traditional vascular risk factors. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use was strongly associated with both stroke and death.

COVID-19/epidemiology , Stroke/epidemiology , Aged , Comorbidity , Critical Illness , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
Front Neurol ; 12: 664599, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1370992


Background: There is growing evidence that SARS-Cov-2 infection is associated with severe neurological complications. Understanding the nature and prevalence of these neurologic manifestations is essential for identifying higher-risk patients and projecting demand for ongoing resource utilisation. This review and meta-analysis report the neurologic manifestations identified in hospitalised COVID-19 patients and provide a preliminary estimate of disease prevalence. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus were searched for studies reporting the occurrence of neurological complications in hospitalised COVID-19 patients. Results: A total of 2,207 unique entries were identified and screened, among which 14 cohort studies and 53 case reports were included, reporting on a total of 8,577 patients. Central nervous system manifestations included ischemic stroke (n = 226), delirium (n = 79), intracranial haemorrhage (ICH, n = 57), meningoencephalitis (n = 13), seizures (n = 3), and acute demyelinating encephalitis (n = 2). Peripheral nervous system manifestations included Guillain-Barrè Syndrome (n = 21) and other peripheral neuropathies (n = 3). The pooled period prevalence of ischemic stroke from identified studies was 1.3% [95%CI: 0.9-1.8%, 102/7,715] in all hospitalised COVID-19 patients, and 2.8% [95%CI: 1.0-4.6%, 9/318] among COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU. The pooled prevalence of ICH was estimated at 0.4% [95%CI: 0-0.8%, 6/1,006]. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic exerts a substantial neurologic burden which may have residual effects on patients and healthcare systems for years. Low quality evidence impedes the ability to accurately predict the magnitude of this burden. Robust studies with standardised screening and case definitions are required to improve understanding of this disease and optimise treatment of individuals at higher risk for neurologic sequelae.