Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Neurol Sci ; 43(3): 1513-1520, 2022 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1606580


OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess whether the role of neurologists in the emergency department changed during the coronavirus (COVID)-19 pandemic. METHODS: Data from an Italian national survey investigating the role of neurologists in the emergency room conducted in December 2020 were compared with those of the same survey of the previous year. These surveys involved a questionnaire being completed filled in for patients who received a neurological consultation following a visit to the emergency room. Information gathered included demographic characteristics, triage level according to both the emergency physician and neurologist, reason for the consultation, neurological evaluation, and discharge mode. RESULTS: In both years, approximately half of the patients were women, and the median age was 61 years. More patients in 2020 arrived by ambulance and had a greater need for assistance based on triage level than in 2019. During 2020, the proportion of consultancy requests judged by the neurologist was higher than that in 2019 (77% vs. 73%). Moreover, in 2020, fewer patients required consultation for headache, muscle pain, fever, and neurological signs, whereas coma was more prevalent. The diagnosis of ischemic stroke was the most prevalent in both years, followed by transient ischemic attack. In 2020, the status epilepticus increased and discopathy decreased. CONCLUSION: This study showed the significant role played by neurologists in emergency activities, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, and highlighted the differences in patients admitted between the year of the epidemic and the year previous.

COVID-19 , Pandemics , Emergency Service, Hospital , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Neurologists , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
Neurosci Lett ; 759: 136040, 2021 08 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1322284


Despite a likely underestimation due to the many obstacles of the highly infectious, intensive care setting, increasing clinical reports about COVID-19 patients developing acute paralysis for polyradiculoneuritis or myelitis determine additional impact on the disease course and outcome. Different pathogenic mechanisms have been postulated basing on clinical, laboratory and neuroimaging features, and response to treatments. Here we provide an overview with insights built on the available reports. Besides direct viral pathogenicity, a crucial role seems to be represented by immune-mediated mechanisms, supporting and further characterizing the already hypothesized neurotropic potential of SARS-CoV-2 and implying specific treatments. Proper clinical and instrumental depiction of symptomatic cases, as well as screening for their early recognition is advocated.

COVID-19/complications , Guillain-Barre Syndrome/virology , Myelitis/epidemiology , Myelitis/virology , Guillain-Barre Syndrome/pathology , Humans , Myelitis/pathology , SARS-CoV-2
Front Neurol ; 12: 643713, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1156135


Background: The clinical spectrum of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, may be quite wide, including neurological symptoms. Among them, para-infectious or post-infectious neurological syndromes (PINS), caused by an inflammatory response against the central and/or peripheral nervous system, have been reported. The aim of this paper is to illustrate the functional and neurophysiological recovery in a series of subjects with COVID-19-related PINS who underwent intensive neurorehabilitation. Materials and Methods: Five patients with PINS associated with COVID-19 were evaluated at baseline and followed up for 6 months. Three of them had polyradiculoneuropathy and two patients had myelitis. The onset of the neurological syndromes was temporally associated with the SARS-CoV-2 infection. After completing the acute neurological treatments in the intensive care unit, patients underwent a personalized multidisciplinary rehabilitation program. An in-depth clinical, functional, and electrophysiological assessment was carried out at baseline and at 3- and 6-month follow-ups. Results: Among patients with polyradiculoneuropathy, the electrophysiological evaluation at baseline disclosed an acute inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (AIDP) in two patients and an acute motor and sensory axonal neuropathy (AMSAN) in the third patient. At follow-up, the electrophysiological features improved in one subject with AIDP and were stable in the remaining two cases. The functional assessment after neurorehabilitation showed global recovery and full independence in walking and in activities of daily life in one patient and mild improvement in the other two cases. Of the two subjects with myelitis, the baseline electrophysiological examination showed a prolonged central motor conduction time, which returned to normal in one patient, whereas it improved but remained pathological in the other patient at follow-up. The neurorehabilitation led to a substantial functional improvement in both subjects. Discussion and Conclusions: This is the first study to describe clinical and electrophysiological aspects along with medium-term outcome in patients with COVID-19-related neurological manifestations who underwent an intensive rehabilitation program. The functional outcome following neurorehabilitation in patients with PINS related to SARS-CoV-2 infection is variable. In our small case series, subjects with polyradiculoneuropathy had a poorer recovery compared to patients with myelitis. The clinical course largely paralleled the follow-up electrophysiological findings.