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

Early tracheostomy in ventilated stroke patients: Study protocol of the international multicentre randomized trial SETPOINT2 (Stroke-related Early Tracheostomy vs. Prolonged Orotracheal Intubation in Neurocritical care Trial 2).

BACKGROUND: Tracheostomy is a common procedure in long-term ventilated critical care patients and frequently necessary in those with severe stroke. The optimal timing for tracheostomy is still unknown, and it is controversial whether early tracheostomy impacts upon functional outcome. METHOD: The Stroke-related Early Tracheostomy vs. Prolonged Orotracheal Intubation in Neurocritical care Trial 2 (SETPOINT2) is a multicentre, prospective, randomized, open-blinded endpoint (PROBE-design) trial. Patients with acute ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage or subarachnoid hemorrhage who are so severely affected that two weeks of ventilation are presumed necessary based on a prediction score are eligible. It is intended to enroll 190 patients per group (n = 380). Patients are randomized to either percutaneous tracheostomy within the first five days after intubation or to ongoing orotracheal intubation with consecutive weaning and extubation and, if the latter failed, to percutaneous tracheostomy from day 10 after intubation. The primary endpoint is functional outcome defined by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS, 0-4 (favorable) vs. 5 + 6 (unfavorable)) after six months; secondary endpoints are mortality and cause of mortality during intensive care unit-stay and within six months from admission, intensive care unit-length of stay, duration of sedation, duration of ventilation and weaning, timing and reasons for withdrawal of life support measures, relevant intracranial pressure rises before and after tracheostomy. CONCLUSION: The necessity and optimal timing of tracheostomy in ventilated stroke patients need to be identified. SETPOINT2 should clarify whether benefits in functional outcome can be achieved by early tracheostomy in these patients

Prognosis and management of acute symptomatic seizures: a prospective, multicenter, observational study

Abstract Background Acute symptomatic epileptic seizures are frequently seen in neurocritical care. To prevent subsequent unprovoked seizures, long-term treatments with antiseizure medications are often initiated although supporting evidence is lacking. This study aimed at prospectively assessing the risk of unprovoked seizure relapse with respect to the use of antiseizure medications. It was hypothesized that after a first acute symptomatic seizure of structural etiology, the cumulative 12-month risk of unprovoked seizure relapse is ≤ 25%. Methods Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 and acute symptomatic first-ever epileptic seizure; patients with status epilepticus were excluded. Using telephone and mail interviews, participants were followed for 12 months after the acute symptomatic first seizure. Primary endpoint was the occurrence and timing of a first unprovoked seizure relapse. In addition, neuro-intensivists in Germany were interviewed about their antiseizure treatment strategies through an anonymous online survey. Results Eleven of 122 participants with structural etiology had an unprovoked seizure relapse, resulting in a cumulative 12-month risk of 10.7% (95%CI, 4.7%–16.7%). None of 19 participants with a non-structural etiology had a subsequent unprovoked seizure. Compared to structural etiology alone, combined infectious and structural etiology was independently associated with unprovoked seizure relapse (OR 11.1; 95%CI, 1.8–69.7). Median duration of antiseizure treatment was 3.4 months (IQR 0–9.3). Seven out of 11 participants had their unprovoked seizure relapse while taking antiseizure medication; longer treatment durations were not associated with decreased risk of unprovoked seizure relapse. Following the non-representative online survey, most neuro-intensivists consider 3 months or less of antiseizure medication to be adequate. Conclusions Even in case of structural etiology, acute symptomatic seizures bear a low risk of subsequent unprovoked seizures. There is still no evidence favoring long-term treatments with antiseizure medications. Hence, individual constellations with an increased risk of unprovoked seizure relapse should be identified, such as central nervous system infections causing structural brain damage. However, in the absence of high-risk features, antiseizure medications should be discontinued early to avoid overtreatment

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

Abstract 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