Objective:To determine the prevalence and associated mortality of well-defined neurologic diagnoses among COVID-19 patients, we prospectively followed hospitalized SARS-Cov-2 positive patients and recorded new neurologic disorders and hospital outcomes.Methods:We conducted a prospective, multi-center, observational study of consecutive hospitalized adults in the NYC metropolitan area with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The prevalence of new neurologic disorders (as diagnosed by a neurologist) was recorded and in-hospital mortality and discharge disposition were compared between COVID-19 patients with and without neurologic disorders.Results:Of 4,491 COVID-19 patients hospitalized during the study timeframe, 606 (13.5%) developed a new neurologic disorder in a median of 2 days from COVID-19 symptom onset. The most common diagnoses were: toxic/metabolic encephalopathy (6.8%), seizure (1.6%), stroke (1.9%), and hypoxic/ischemic injury (1.4%). No patient had meningitis/encephalitis, or myelopathy/myelitis referable to SARS-CoV-2 infection and 18/18 CSF specimens were RT-PCR negative for SARS-CoV-2. Patients with neurologic disorders were more often older, male, white, hypertensive, diabetic, intubated, and had higher sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores (all P<0.05). After adjusting for age, sex, SOFA-scores, intubation, past history, medical complications, medications and comfort-care-status, COVID-19 patients with neurologic disorders had increased risk of in-hospital mortality (Hazard Ratio[HR] 1.38, 95% CI 1.17-1.62, P<0.001) and decreased likelihood of discharge home (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63-0.85, P<0.001).Conclusions:Neurologic disorders were detected in 13.5% of COVID-19 patients and were associated with increased risk of in-hospital mortality and decreased likelihood of discharge home. Many observed neurologic disorders may be sequelae of severe systemic illness.

No abstract

Objective: There is evidence for central nervous system complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection, including encephalopathy. Encephalopathy caused by or arising from seizures, especially nonconvulsive seizures (NCS), often requires electroencephalography (EEG) monitoring for diagnosis. The prevalence of seizures and other EEG abnormalities among COVID-19-infected patients is unknown. Methods: Medical records and EEG studies of patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 infections over a 2-month period at a single US academic health system (four hospitals) were reviewed to describe the distribution of EEG findings including epileptiform abnormalities (seizures, periodic discharges, or nonperiodic epileptiform discharges). Factors including demographics, remote and acute brain injury, prior history of epilepsy, preceding seizures, critical illness severity scores, and interleukin 6 (IL-6) levels were compared to EEG findings to identify predictors of epileptiform EEG abnormalities. Results: Of 111 patients monitored, most were male (71%), middle-aged or older (median age 64 years), admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU; 77%), and comatose (70%). Excluding 11 patients monitored after cardiac arrest, the most frequent EEG finding was moderate generalized slowing (57%), but epileptiform findings were observed in 30% and seizures in 7% (4% with NCS). Three patients with EEG seizures did not have epilepsy or evidence of acute or remote brain injury, although all had clinical seizures prior to EEG. Only having epilepsy (odds ratio [OR] 5.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-21) or seizure(s) prior to EEG (OR 4.8, 95% CI 1.7-13) was independently associated with epileptiform EEG findings. Significance: Our study supports growing evidence that COVID-19 can affect the central nervous system, although seizures are unlikely a common cause of encephalopathy. Seizures and epileptiform activity on EEG occurred infrequently, and having 2098 |

Objective: To test the hypothesis that people with focal epilepsy experience diagnostic delays that may be associated with preventable morbidity, particularly when seizures have only nonmotor symptoms, we compared time to diagnosis, injuries, and motor vehicle accidents (MVAs) in people with focal nonmotor versus focal seizures with motor involvement at epilepsy onset. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed the enrollment data from the Human Epilepsy Project, which enrolled participants between 2012 and 2017 across 34 sites in the USA, Canada, Europe, and Australia, within 4 months of treatment for focal epilepsy. A total of 447 participants were grouped by initial seizure semiology (focal nonmotor or focal with motor involvement) to compare time to diagnosis and prediagnostic injuries including MVAs. Results: Demographic characteristics were similar between groups. There were 246 participants (55%) with nonmotor seizures and 201 participants (45%) with motor seizures at epilepsy onset. Median time to diagnosis from first seizure was 10 times longer in patients with nonmotor seizures compared to motor seizures at onset (P < .001). The number and severity of injuries were similar between groups. However, 82.6% of MVAs occurred in patients with undiagnosed nonmotor seizures. Significance: This study identifies reasons for delayed diagnosis and consequences of delay in patients with new onset focal epilepsy, highlighting a treatment gap that is particularly significant in patients who experience nonmotor seizures at epilepsy onset.

No abstract