Search

This proceedings article presents actionable research targets on the basis of the presentations and discussions at the 2nd Curing Coma National Institutes of Health (NIH) symposium held from May 3 to May 5, 2021. Here, we summarize the background, research priorities, panel discussions, and deliverables discussed during the symposium across six major domains related to disorders of consciousness. The six domains include (1) Biology of Coma, (2) Coma Database, (3) Neuroprognostication, (4) Care of Comatose Patients, (5) Early Clinical Trials, and (6) Long-term Recovery. Following the 1st Curing Coma NIH virtual symposium held on September 9 to September 10, 2020, six workgroups, each consisting of field experts in respective domains, were formed and tasked with identifying gaps and developing key priorities and deliverables to advance the mission of the Curing Coma Campaign. The highly interactive and inspiring presentations and panel discussions during the 3-day virtual NIH symposium identified several action items for the Curing Coma Campaign mission, which we summarize in this article., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Although coma is commonly encountered in critical care, worldwide variability exists in diagnosis and management practices. We aimed to assess variability in coma definitions, etiologies, treatment strategies, and attitudes toward prognosis., Methods: As part of the Neurocritical Care Society Curing Coma Campaign, between September 2020 and January 2021, we conducted an anonymous, international, cross-sectional global survey of health care professionals caring for patients with coma and disorders of consciousness in the acute, subacute, or chronic setting. Survey responses were solicited by sequential emails distributed by international neuroscience societies and social media. Fleiss κ values were calculated to assess agreement among respondents., Results: The survey was completed by 258 health care professionals from 41 countries. Respondents predominantly were physicians (n = 213, 83%), were from the United States (n = 141, 55%), and represented academic centers (n = 231, 90%). Among eight predefined items, respondents identified the following cardinal features, in various combinations, that must be present to define coma: absence of wakefulness (81%, κ = 0.764); Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) ≤ 8 (64%, κ = 0.588); failure to respond purposefully to visual, verbal, or tactile stimuli (60%, κ = 0.552); and inability to follow commands (58%, κ = 0.529). Reported etiologies of coma encountered included medically induced coma (24%), traumatic brain injury (24%), intracerebral hemorrhage (21%), and cardiac arrest/hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (11%). The most common clinical assessment tools used for coma included the GCS (94%) and neurological examination (78%). Sixty-six percent of respondents routinely performed sedation interruption, in the absence of contraindications, for clinical coma assessments in the intensive care unit. Advanced neurological assessment techniques in comatose patients included quantitative electroencephalography (EEG)/connectivity analysis (16%), functional magnetic resonance imaging (7%), single-photon emission computerized tomography (6%), positron emission tomography (4%), invasive EEG (4%), and cerebral microdialysis (4%). The most commonly used neurostimulants included amantadine (51%), modafinil (37%), and methylphenidate (28%). The leading determinants for prognostication included etiology of coma, neurological examination findings, and neuroimaging. Fewer than 20% of respondents reported routine follow-up of coma survivors after hospital discharge; however, 86% indicated interest in future research initiatives that include postdischarge outcomes at six (85%) and 12 months (65%)., Conclusions: There is wide heterogeneity among health care professionals regarding the clinical definition of coma and limited routine use of advanced coma assessment techniques in acute care settings. Coma management practices vary across sites, and mechanisms for coordinated and sustained follow-up after acute treatment are inconsistent. There is an urgent need for the development of evidence-based guidelines and a collaborative, coordinated approach to advance both the science and the practice of coma management globally., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Early neurorehabilitation improves outcomes in patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) after brain injury, but its applicability in COVID-19 is unknown. We describe our experience implementing an early neurorehabilitation protocol for patients with COVID-19-associated DoC in the intensive care unit (ICU) and evaluate factors associated with recovery., Methods: During the initial COVID-19 surge in New York City between March 10 and May 20, 2020, faced with a disproportionately high number of ICU patients with prolonged unresponsiveness, we developed and implemented an early neurorehabilitation protocol, applying standard practices from brain injury rehabilitation care to the ICU setting. Twenty-one patients with delayed recovery of consciousness after severe COVID-19 participated in a pilot early neurorehabilitation program that included serial Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) assessments, multimodal treatment, and access to clinicians specializing in brain injury medicine. We retrospectively compared clinical features of patients who did and did not recover to the minimally conscious state (MCS) or better, defined as a CRS-R total score (TS) ≥ 8, before discharge. We additionally examined factors associated with best CRS-R TS, last CRS-R TS, hospital length of stay, and time on mechanical ventilation., Results: Patients underwent CRS-R assessments a median of six (interquartile range [IQR] 3-10) times before discharge, beginning a median of 48 days (IQR 40-55) from admission. Twelve (57%) patients recovered to MCS after a median of 8 days (IQR 2-14) off continuous sedation; they had lower body mass index (p = 0.009), lower peak serum C-reactive protein levels (p = 0.023), higher minimum arterial partial pressure of oxygen (p = 0.028), and earlier fentanyl discontinuation (p = 0.018). CRS-R scores fluctuated over time, and the best CRS-R TS was significantly higher than the last CRS-R TS (median 8 [IQR 5-23] vs. 5 [IQR 3-18], p = 0.002). Earlier fentanyl (p = 0.001) and neuromuscular blockade (p = 0.015) discontinuation correlated with a higher last CRS-R TS., Conclusions: More than half of our cohort of patients with prolonged unresponsiveness following severe COVID-19 recovered to MCS or better before hospital discharge, achieving a clinical benchmark known to have relatively favorable long-term prognostic implications in DoC of other etiologies. Hypoxia, systemic inflammation, sedation, and neuromuscular blockade may impact diagnostic assessment and prognosis, and fluctuations in level of consciousness make serial assessments essential. Early neurorehabilitation of these patients in the ICU can be accomplished but is associated with unique challenges. Further research should evaluate factors associated with longer-term neurologic recovery and benefits of early rehabilitation in patients with severe COVID-19., (© 2021. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and Neurocritical Care Society.)

Background and Purpose: While the thrombotic complications of COVID-19 have been well described, there are limited data on clinically significant bleeding complications including hemorrhagic stroke. The clinical characteristics, underlying stroke mechanism, and outcomes in this particular subset of patients are especially salient as therapeutic anticoagulation becomes increasingly common in the treatment and prevention of thrombotic complications of COVID-19., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with hemorrhagic stroke (both non-traumatic intracerebral hemorrhage and spontaneous non-aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage) who were hospitalized between March 1, 2020, and May 15, 2020, within a major healthcare system in New York, during the coronavirus pandemic. Patients with hemorrhagic stroke on admission and who developed hemorrhage during hospitalization were both included. We compared the clinical characteristics of patients with hemorrhagic stroke and COVID-19 to those without COVID-19 admitted to our hospital system between March 1, 2020, and May 15, 2020 (contemporary controls), and March 1, 2019, and May 15, 2019 (historical controls). Demographic variables and clinical characteristics between the individual groups were compared using Fischer's exact test for categorical variables and nonparametric test for continuous variables. We adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni method., Results: During the study period in 2020, out of 4071 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19, we identified 19 (0.5%) with hemorrhagic stroke. Of all COVID-19 with hemorrhagic stroke, only three had isolated non-aneurysmal SAH with no associated intraparenchymal hemorrhage. Among hemorrhagic stroke in patients with COVID-19, coagulopathy was the most common etiology (73.7%); empiric anticoagulation was started in 89.5% of these patients versus 4.2% in contemporary controls (p ≤ .001) and 10.0% in historical controls (p ≤ .001). Compared to contemporary and historical controls, patients with COVID-19 had higher initial NIHSS scores, INR, PTT, and fibrinogen levels. Patients with COVID-19 also had higher rates of in-hospital mortality (84.6% vs. 4.6%, p ≤ 0.001). Sensitivity analyses excluding patients with strictly subarachnoid hemorrhage yielded similar results., Conclusion: We observed an overall low rate of imaging-confirmed hemorrhagic stroke among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Most hemorrhages in patients with COVID-19 infection occurred in the setting of therapeutic anticoagulation and were associated with increased mortality. Further studies are needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of therapeutic anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19.

Background: As the COVID-19 pandemic developed, reports of neurological dysfunctions spanning the central and peripheral nervous systems have emerged. The spectrum of acute neurological dysfunctions may implicate direct viral invasion, para-infectious complications, neurological manifestations of systemic diseases, or co-incident neurological dysfunction in the context of high SARS-CoV-2 prevalence. A rapid and pragmatic approach to understanding the prevalence, phenotypes, pathophysiology and prognostic implications of COVID-19 neurological syndromes is urgently needed., Methods: The Global Consortium to Study Neurological dysfunction in COVID-19 (GCS-NeuroCOVID), endorsed by the Neurocritical Care Society (NCS), was rapidly established to address this need in a tiered approach. Tier-1 consists of focused, pragmatic, low-cost, observational common data element (CDE) collection, which can be launched immediately at many sites in the first phase of this pandemic and is designed for expedited ethical board review with waiver-of-consent. Tier 2 consists of prospective functional and cognitive outcomes assessments with more detailed clinical, laboratory and radiographic data collection that would require informed consent. Tier 3 overlays Tiers 1 and 2 with experimental molecular, electrophysiology, pathology and imaging studies with longitudinal outcomes assessment and would require centers with specific resources. A multicenter pediatrics core has developed and launched a parallel study focusing on patients ages <18 years. Study sites are eligible for participation if they provide clinical care to COVID-19 patients and are able to conduct patient-oriented research under approval of an internal or global ethics committee. Hospitalized pediatric and adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 and with acute neurological signs or symptoms are eligible to participate. The primary study outcome is the overall prevalence of neurological complications among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, which will be calculated by pooled estimates of each neurological finding divided by the average census of COVID-19 positive patients over the study period. Secondary outcomes include: in-hospital, 30 and 90-day morality, discharge modified Rankin score, ventilator-free survival, ventilator days, discharge disposition, and hospital length of stay., Results: In a one-month period (3/27/20-4/27/20) the GCS-NeuroCOVID consortium was able to recruit 71 adult study sites, representing 17 countries and 5 continents and 34 pediatrics study sites., Conclusions: This is one of the first large-scale global research collaboratives urgently assembled to evaluate acute neurological events in the context of a pandemic. The innovative and pragmatic tiered study approach has allowed for rapid recruitment and activation of numerous sites across the world-an approach essential to capture real-time critical neurological data to inform treatment strategies in this pandemic crisis.

Regional multimodality monitoring has evolved over the last several years as a tool to understand the mechanisms of brain injury and brain function at the cellular level. Multimodality monitoring offers an important augmentation to the clinical exam and is especially useful in comatose neurocritical care patients. Cerebral microdialysis, brain tissue oxygen monitoring, and cerebral blood flow monitoring all offer insight into permutations in brain chemistry and function that occur in the context of brain injury. These tools may allow for development of individual therapeutic strategies that are mechanistically driven and goal-directed. We present a summary of the discussions that took place during the Second Neurocritical Care Research Conference regarding regional brain monitoring.