Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic has led to challenges in provision of care, clinical assessment and communication with families. The unique considerations associated with evaluation of catastrophic brain injury and death by neurologic criteria in patients with Covid-19 infection have not been examined. METHODS:We describe the evaluation of six patients hospitalized at a health network in New York City in April 2020 who had Covid-19, were comatose and had absent brainstem reflexes. RESULTS:Four males and two females with a median age of 58.5 (IQR 47-68) were evaluated for catastrophic brain injury due to stroke and/or global anoxic injury at a median of 14 days (IQR 13-18) after admission for acute respiratory failure due to Covid-19. All patients had hypotension requiring vasopressors and had been treated with sedative/narcotic drips for ventilator dyssynchrony. Among these patients, 5 had received paralytics. Apnea testing was performed for 1 patient due to the decision to withdraw treatment (n = 2), concern for inability to tolerate testing (n = 2) and observation of spontaneous respirations (n = 1). The apnea test was aborted due to hypoxia and hypotension. After ancillary testing, death was declared in three patients based on neurologic criteria and in three patients based on cardiopulmonary criteria (after withdrawal of support (n = 2) or cardiopulmonary arrest (n = 1)). A family member was able to visit 5/6 patients prior to cardiopulmonary arrest/discontinuation of organ support. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:It is feasible to evaluate patients with catastrophic brain injury and declare brain death despite the Covid-19 pandemic, but this requires unique considerations.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:We conducted this study to investigate the prevalence and distribution of cerebral microbleeds and leukoencephalopathy in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and correlate with clinical, laboratory, and functional outcomes. METHODS:We performed a retrospective chart review of 4131 COVID-19 positive adult patients who were admitted to 3 tertiary care hospitals of an academic medical center at the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City from March 1, 2020, to May 10, 2020, to identify patients who had magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain. We evaluated the MRIs in detail, and identified a subset of patients with leukoencephalopathy and/or cerebral microbleeds. We compared clinical, laboratory, and functional outcomes for these patients to patients who had a brain MRI that did not show these findings. RESULTS:=0.144). CONCLUSIONS:The presence of leukoencephalopathy and/or cerebral microbleeds is associated with a critical illness, increased mortality, and worse functional outcome in patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Patients with the Coronavirus Disease of 2019 (COVID-19) are at increased risk for thrombotic events and mortality. Various anticoagulation regimens are now being considered for these patients. Anticoagulation is known to increase the risk for adverse bleeding events, of which intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is one of the most feared. We present a retrospective study of 33 patients positive for COVID-19 with neuroimaging-documented ICH and examine anticoagulation use in this population. METHODS:Patients over the age of 18 with confirmed COVID-19 and radiographic evidence of ICH were included in this study. Evidence of hemorrhage was confirmed and categorized by a fellowship trained neuroradiologist. Electronic health records were analyzed for patient information including demographic data, medical history, hospital course, laboratory values, and medications. RESULTS:We identified 33 COVID-19 positive patients with ICH, mean age 61.6 years (range 37-83 years), 21.2% of whom were female. Parenchymal hemorrhages with mass effect and herniation occurred in 5 (15.2%) patients, with a 100% mortality rate. Of the remaining 28 patients with ICH, 7 (25%) had punctate hemorrhages, 17 (60.7%) had small- moderate size hemorrhages, and 4 (14.3%) had a large single site of hemorrhage without evidence of herniation. Almost all patients received either therapeutic dose anticoagulation (in 22 [66.7%] patients) or prophylactic dose (in 3 [9.1] patients) prior to ICH discovery. CONCLUSIONS:Anticoagulation therapy may be considered in patients with COVID-19 though the risk of ICH should be taken into account when developing a treatment regimen.

Patients, clinicians, and hospitals have undergone monumental changes during the COVID-19 pandemic. This time of troubles has forced us to consider the fundamental obligations that neurologists have to our own individual patients as well as the greater community. By returning to our fundamental understanding of these duties we can ensure that we are providing the most ethically appropriate contingency and crisis care possible. We recommend specific adaptations to both the inpatient and outpatient settings, as well as changes to medical and trainee education. Furthermore, we explore the daunting but potentially necessary implementation of scare resource allocation protocols. As the pandemic evolves, we will need to adapt continuously to these rapidly changing circumstances and consider both national and regional standards and variation.

OBJECTIVE:To identify similarities and differences in protocols on determination of brain death/death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC) around the world. METHODS:We collected and reviewed official national BD/DNC protocols from contacts around the world between January 2018 and April 2019. RESULTS:We communicated with contacts in 136 countries and found that 83 (61% of countries with contacts identified, 42% of the world) had BD/DNC protocols, 78 of which were unique. Protocols addressed the following prerequisites and provided differing instructions: drug clearance (64, 82%), temperature (61, 78%), laboratory values (56, 72%), observation period (37, 47%), and blood pressure (34, 44%). Protocols did not consistently identify the same components for the clinical examination of brain death; 70 (90%) included coma, 70 (90%) included the pupillary reflex, 68 (87%) included the corneal reflex, 67 (86%) included the oculovestibular reflex, 64 (82%) included the gag reflex, 62 (79%) included the cough reflex, 58 (74%) included the oculocephalic reflex, 37 (47%) included noxious stimulation to the face, and 22 (28%) included noxious stimulation to the limbs. Apnea testing was mentioned in 71 (91%) protocols; there was variability in the technique and target across protocols. Ancillary testing was included as a requirement for all determinations of BD/DNC in 22 (28%) protocols. CONCLUSIONS:There is considerable variability in BD/DNC determination protocols around the world. Medical standards for death should be the same everywhere. We recommend that a worldwide consensus be reached on the minimum standards for BD/DNC.

OBJECTIVE:To account for factors affecting family approach and consent for organ donation after brain death (BD). MATERIAL AND METHODS/METHODS:A prospective cohort study in a large, tertiary, urban hospital, where we reviewed the database of all brain-dead patients between January 2006 and December 2017 cross-matched with local organ procurement organization (OPO) records. RESULTS:Two-hundred sixty-six brain-dead patients were included (55% African Americans (AAs)). Two-hundred twenty-two were approached for donation. The reason for not approaching families was medical exclusion due to cancer or multi-organ failure. Patient demographics or religion were not associated with approaching families. Lower creatinine level was the only independent factor associated with higher approach. Consent rate for organ donation was 72.5%. Consent was significantly higher in Caucasians (89% vs 62% for AAs), younger patients (46.7 vs 52.5 years old), in patients with lower creatinine at time of death (1.7 vs 2.4 mg/dL), patients for whom apnea testing was completed (92% vs 80%) and patients with diabetes insipidus (DI) (72% vs 54%). There was no significant relationship between consent and patient gender, admission diagnosis, number of examinations or completion of a confirmatory test. In a logistic regression model, only AA race independently predicted consent for donation (odds, 95% CI, 0.27, 0.12-0.57 p < .001). In a different model, apnea test completion was an additional independent predictor (3.66, 1.28-10.5 p = .015). CONCLUSIONS:Approaching families for organ donation consent was associated with medical suitability only and not with demographic or religious characteristics. AAs were 3.7 times less likely to consent for organ donation than non-AAs. Completion of apnea testing was associated with higher consent rates, an observation that needs to be explored in future studies documenting the effect on bedside family presence during this test.

The COVID-19 pandemic has precipitated the need for frequent end-of-life discussions. The circumstances surrounding these conversations are quite atypical. Here, I describe one such goals-of-care discussion during the pandemic and how I relied on the precedent of prior goals-of-care discussions to guide me through an unprecedented situation.