Neurology International最新文献

Neuromonitoring is a critical tool for emergency rooms and intensive care units to promptly identify and treat brain injuries. The case report of a patient with status epilepticus necessitating orotracheal intubation and intravenous lorazepam administration is presented. A pattern of epileptiform activity was detected in the left temporal region, and intravenous Acyclovir was administered based on the diagnostic hypothesis of herpetic meningoencephalitis. The neurointensivist opted for multimodal non-invasive bedside neuromonitoring due to the complexity of the patient's condition. A Brain4care (B4C) non-invasive intracranial compliance monitor was utilized alongside the assessment of an optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) and transcranial Doppler (TCD). Based on the collected data, a diagnosis of intracranial hypertension (ICH) was made and a treatment plan was developed. After the neurosurgery team's evaluation, a stereotaxic biopsy of the temporal lesion revealed a grade 2 diffuse astrocytoma, and an urgent total resection was performed. Research suggests that monitoring patients in a dedicated neurologic intensive care unit (Neuro ICU) can lead to improved outcomes and shorter hospital stays. In addition to being useful for patients with a primary brain injury, neuromonitoring may also be advantageous for those at risk of cerebral hemodynamic impairment. Lastly, it is essential to note that neuromonitoring technologies are non-invasive, less expensive, safe, and bedside-accessible approaches with significant diagnostic and monitoring potential for patients at risk of brain abnormalities. Multimodal neuromonitoring is a vital tool in critical care units for the identification and management of acute brain trauma as well as for patients at risk of cerebral hemodynamic impairment.

Introduction: Neurological consultation for patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 is common; it is currently unknown whether the neurologist's approach to inpatient consultation of patients with SARS-CoV-2 should differ from the paradigm used to evaluate hospitalized patients with similar respiratory viruses. The goal of the present study is to determine if the preponderance of new neurologic diagnoses differs between inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 and similar non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory viruses for whom neurology is consulted. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart analysis of inpatient neurologic consultations at three major Philadelphia-based hospitals. We compared the final neurologic diagnosis of 152 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 to 54 patients with a similar ubiquitous non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory virus (influenza A, influenza B, respiratory syncytial virus, rhinovirus, or adenovirus, the most commonly tested respiratory viruses at our institution). Secondary metrics included age, sex, level of care, prior neurologic diagnoses, and mortality. A multinomial logistic regression model was utilized to evaluate the relative difference between diagnostic category groups on all metrics. Results: The proportion of patients with seizure who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) was significantly higher than those who were admitted to a medical-surgical floor. SARS-CoV-2 was also associated with increased risk for ICU admission compared to other common respiratory viruses. SARS-CoV-2 inpatients requiring neurologic consultation were also more likely to be older and female as compared to the non-SARS-CoV-2 cohort. In other domains, the proportion of neurologic diagnoses between SAR-CoV-2 and non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory viruses showed no significant difference. Conclusion: Patients requiring inpatient neurologic consultation with a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection or another respiratory virus were found to be remarkably similar in terms of their ultimate neurologic diagnosis, with the exception of a larger preponderance of seizure in critical-care-level patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our study suggests that the neurological approach to patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 should be similar to that for patients with similar common respiratory infections, noting that seizure was seen more frequently in critically ill patients infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Visual-motor illusion (VMI) elicits kinesthetic sensation from visual stimulation. We have previously performed ankle motion VMI with resistance applied to the ankle joint on the paralyzed side (power-VMI (P-VMI)) and ankle motion VMI without resistance (standard-VMI (S-VMI)) to activate the tibialis anterior (TA) muscle in stroke-paralyzed patients and compared sit-to-stand (STS) durations, but these studies did not measure TA activity during the STS movement. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of different intensities of visual stimuli presented during VMI on TA and STS movement. Healthy right-footed adults (n = 18) observed two different VMI videos of ankle dorsiflexion, including S-VMI and P-VMI, with an observation time of 2 min each. STS movement was evaluated before and after watching each video. Each participant performed both S-VMI and P-VMI interventions on the same day. Only P-VMI enhanced the integrated electromyogram of the TA, increased the angular velocities of the trunk forward inclination and the ankle dorsiflexion, and shortened the STS duration. Our results indicate that P-VMI facilitates the activation of TA during STS, and we believe that we have clarified the intervention mechanism of VMI.