Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:The Curing Coma Campaign (CCC) is a multidisciplinary global initiative focused on evaluation, diagnosis, treatment, research, and prognostication for patients who are comatose due to any etiology. To support this mission, the CCC Ethics Working Group conducted a survey of CCC collaborators to identify the ethics priorities of the CCC and the variability in priorities based on country of practice. METHODS:An electronic survey on the ethics priorities for the CCC was developed using rank-choice questions and distributed between May and July 2021 to a listserv of the 164 collaborators of the CCC. The median rank for each topic and subtopic was determined. Comparisons were made on the basis of country of practice. RESULTS:The survey was completed by 93 respondents (57% response rate); 67% practiced in the United States. On the basis of respondent ranking of each topic, the prioritization of ethics topics across respondents was as follows: (1) clinical care, (2) diagnostic definitions, (3) clinical research, (4) implementation/innovation, (5) family, (6) data management, (7) public engagement/perceptions, and (8) equity. Respondents who practiced in the United States were particularly concerned about public engagement, the distinction between clinical care and research, disclosure of results from clinical research to families, the definition of "personhood," and the distinction between the self-fulfilling prophecy/nihilism and medical futility. Respondents who practiced in other countries were particularly concerned about diagnostic modalities for clinical care, investigational drugs/devices for clinical research, translation of research into practice, and the definition of "minimally conscious state." CONCLUSIONS:Collaborators of the CCC considered clinical care, diagnostic definitions, and clinical research the top ethics priorities of the CCC. These priorities should be considered as the CCC explores ways to improve evaluation, diagnosis, treatment, research, and prognostication of patients with coma and associated disorders of consciousness. There is some variability in ethics priorities based on country of practice.

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.

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are statements that provide evidence-based recommendations aimed at optimizing patient care. However, many other documents are often published as "guidelines" when they are not; these documents, although also important in clinical practice, are usually not systematically produced following rigorous processes linking the evidence to the recommendations. Specifically, the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) guideline development toolkit aims to ensure that high-quality CPGs are developed to fill knowledge gaps and optimize the management of epilepsy. In addition to adhering to key methodological processes, guideline developers need to consider that effective CPGs should lead to improvements in clinical processes of care and health care outcomes. This requires monitoring the effectiveness of epilepsy-related CPGs and interventions to remove the barriers to epilepsy CPG implementation. This article provides an overview of what distinguishes quality CPGs from other documents and discusses their benefits and limitations. We summarize the recently revised ILAE CPG development process and elaborate on the barriers and facilitators to guideline dissemination, implementation, and adaptation.

In patients who undergo thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke, the relationship between pre-admission antithrombotic (anticoagulation or antiplatelet) use and both radiographic and functional outcome is not well understood. We sought to explore the relationship between pre-admission antithrombotic use in patients who underwent thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke at two medical centers in New York City between December 2018 and November 2020. Analyses were performed using analysis of variance and Pearson's chi-squared tests. Of 234 patients in the analysis cohort, 65 (28%) were on anticoagulation, 64 (27%) were on antiplatelet, and 105 (45%) with no antithrombotic use pre-admission. 3-month Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 3-6 was associated with pre-admission antithrombotic use (71% anticoagulation vs. 77% antiplatelet vs. 56% no antithrombotic, p = 0.04). There was no relationship between pre-admission antithrombotic use and Thrombolysis in Cerebral Iinfarction (TICI) score, post-procedure Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) score, rate of hemorrhagic conversion, length of hospital admission, discharge NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS), discharge mRS score, or mortality. When initial NIHSS score, post-procedure ASPECTS score, and age at admission were included in multivariate analysis, pre-admission antithrombotic use was still significantly associated with a 3-month mRS score of 3-6 (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.03-5.54, p = 0.04). In this cohort of patients with acute ischemic stroke who underwent thrombectomy, pre-admission antithrombotic use was associated with 3-month mRS score, but no other measures of radiographic or functional outcome. Further research is needed on the relationship between use of specific anticoagulation or antiplatelet agents and outcome after acute ischemic stroke, but moreover, improve stroke prevention.

The demand for intraoperative monitoring (IOM) of lumbar spine surgeries has escalated to accommodate more challenging surgical approaches to prevent perioperative neurologic deficits. Identifying impending injury of individual lumbar roots can be done by assessing free-running EMG and by monitoring the integrity of sensory and motor fibers within the roots by eliciting somatosensory (SEP), and motor evoked potentials. However, the common nerves for eliciting lower limb SEP do not monitor the entire lumbar plexus, excluding fibers from L1 to L4 roots. We aimed to technically optimize the methodology for saphenous nerve SEP (Sap-SEP) proposed for monitoring upper lumbar roots in the operating room. In the first group, the saphenous nerve was consecutively stimulated in two different locations: proximal in the thigh and distal close to the tibia. In the second group, three different recording derivations (10-20 International system) to distal saphenous stimulation were tested. Distal stimulation yielded a higher Sap-SEP amplitude (mean ± SD) than proximal: 1.36 ± 0.9 µV versus 0.62 ± 0.6 µV, (p < 0.0001). Distal stimulation evoked either higher (73%) or similar (12%) Sap-SEP amplitude compared to proximal in most of the nerves. The recording derivation CPz-cCP showed the highest amplitude in 65% of the nerves, followed by CPz-Fz (24%). Distal stimulation for Sap-SEP has advantages over proximal stimulation, including simplicity, lack of movement and higher amplitude responses. The use of two derivations (CPz-cCP, CPz-Fz) optimizes Sap-SEP recording.

OBJECTIVE:Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited epilepsy fellowships, like other ACGME accredited training programs, use Milestones to establish learning objectives and to evaluate how well trainees are achieving these goals. The ACGME began developing the second iteration of the Milestones 6 years ago, and these are now being adapted to all specialties. Here, we describe the process by which Epilepsy Milestones 2.0 were developed and summarize them. METHODS:A work group of nine board-certified, adult and pediatric epileptologists reviewed Epilepsy Milestones 1.0 and revised them using a modified Delphi approach. RESULTS:The new Milestones share structural changes with all other specialties, including a clearer stepwise progression in professional development and the harmonized Milestones that address competencies common to all medical fields. Much of the epilepsy-specific content remains the same, although a major addition is a set of Milestones focused on reading and interpreting electroencephalograms (EEGs), which the old Milestones lacked. Epilepsy Milestones 2.0 includes a Supplemental Guide to help program directors implement the new Milestones. Together, Epilepsy Milestones 2.0 and the Supplemental Guide recognize advances in epilepsy, including stereo-EEG, neurostimulation, genetics, and safety in epilepsy monitoring units. SIGNIFICANCE:Epilepsy Milestones 2.0 address the shortcomings of the old Milestones and should facilitate the assessment of epilepsy fellowships and fellows by program directors, faculty, and fellows themselves.

OBJECTIVES:Early presentation and workup for acute infectious (IE) and autoimmune encephalitis (AE) are similar. This study aims to identify routine laboratory markers at presentation that are associated with IE or AE. METHODS:This was a multi-center retrospective study at three tertiary care hospitals in New York City analyzing demographic and clinical data from patients diagnosed with definitive encephalitis based on a confirmed pathogen and/or autoantibody and established criteria for clinical syndromes. RESULTS:Three hundred and thirty-three individuals with confirmed acute meningoencephalitis were included. An infectious-nonbacterial (NB) pathogen was identified in 151/333 (45.40%), bacterial pathogen in 95/333 (28.50%), and autoantibody in 87/333 (26.10%). NB encephalitis was differentiated from AE by the presence of fever (NB 62.25%, AE 24.10%; p < 0.001), higher CSF white blood cell (WBC) (median 78 cells/μL, 8.00 cells/μL; p < 0.001), higher CSF protein (76.50 mg/dL, 40.90 mg/dL; p < 0.001), lower CSF glucose (58.00 mg/dL, 69.00 mg/dL; p < 0.001), lower serum WBC (7.80 cells/μL, 9.72 cells/μL; p < 0.050), higher erythrocyte sedimentation rate (19.50 mm/HR, 13.00 mm/HR; p < 0.05), higher C-reactive protein (6.40 mg/L, 1.25 mg/L; p = 0.005), and lack of antinuclear antibody titers (>1:40; NB 11.54%, AE 32.73%; p < 0.001). CSF-to-serum WBC ratio was significantly higher in NB compared to AE (NB 11.3, AE 0.99; p < 0.001). From these findings, the association of presenting with fever, CSF WBC ≥50 cells/μL, and CSF protein ≥75 mg/dL was explored in ruling-out AE. When all three criteria are present, an AE was found to be highly unlikely (sensitivity 92%, specificity 75%, negative predictive value 95%, and positive predictive value 64%). INTERPRETATIONS:Specific paraclinical data at initial presentation may risk stratify which patients have an IE versus AE.

There is an urgent need for an in-depth and systematic assessment of a wide range of predictive factors related to populations most at risk for delaying and refusing COVID-19 vaccination as cases of the disease surge across the United States. Many studies have assessed a limited number of general sociodemographic and health-related factors related to low vaccination rates. Machine learning methods were used to assess the association of 151 social and health-related risk factors derived from the American Community Survey 2019 and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) BRFSS with the response variables of vaccination rates and unvaccinated counts in 1,555 ZIP Codes in California. The performance of various analytical models was evaluated according to their ability to regress between predictive variables and vaccination levels. Machine learning modeling identified the Gradient Boosting Regressor (GBR) as the predictive model with a higher percentage of the explained variance than the variance identified through linear and generalized regression models. A set of 20 variables explained 72.90% of the variability of unvaccinated counts among ZIP Codes in California. ZIP Codes were shown to be a more meaningful geo-local unit of analysis than county-level assessments. Modeling vaccination rates was not as effective as modeling unvaccinated counts. The public health utility of this model provides for the analysis of state and local conditions related to COVID-19 vaccination use and future public health problems and pandemics.

Epilepsy surgery should be considered in all patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. The diagnostic presurgical evaluation aims to delineate the epileptogenic zone and its relationship to eloquent brain regions. Genetic testing is not yet routine in presurgical evaluations, despite many monogenic causes of severe epilepsies, including some focal epilepsies. This review highlights genomic data that may inform decisions regarding epilepsy surgery candidacy and strategy. Focal epilepsies due to pathogenic variants in mechanistic target of rapamycin pathway genes are amenable to surgery if clinical, electroencephalography and imaging data are concordant. Epilepsy surgery outcomes are less favourable in patients with pathogenic variants in ion channel genes such as SCN1A. However, genomic data should not be used in isolation to contraindicate epilepsy surgery and should be considered alongside other diagnostic modalities. The additional role of somatic mosaicism in the pathogenesis of focal epilepsies may have implications for surgical planning and prognostication. Here, we advocate for including genomic data in the presurgical evaluation and multidisciplinary discussion for many epilepsy surgery candidates. We encourage neurologists to perform genetic testing in patients with focal non-lesional epilepsy, epilepsy in the setting of intellectual disability and epilepsy due to specific malformations of cortical development. The integration of genomics into the presurgical evaluation assists selection of patients for resective surgery and fosters a personalised medicine approach, where precision or targeted therapies are considered alongside surgical procedures.