Introduction Delirium is recognized as a severe complication of coronavirus-disease-2019 (COVID-19). COVID-19-associated delirium has been linked to worse patient outcomes and is considered to be of multifactorial origin. Here we sought to evaluate the incidence and risk factors of delirium in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, along with its impact on clinical outcome. Methods Consecutive adult COVID-19 patients admitted to a tertiary academic referral hospital between March 1st and December 31st, 2020 were included. Potential risk factors for delirium were evaluated, including: age, gender, disease severity (as per the highest WHO grading reached during admission), laboratory parameters for infection and renal function (as per their most extreme values), and presence of comorbidities. To assess the relative strength of risk factors for predicting the occurrence of delirium, we performed a random-forest survival analysis. Results 347 patients with positive COVID-19 PCR test and median age 68.2 [IQR 55.5, 80.5] years were included. Of those, 79 patients (22.8%) developed delirium, 81 (23.3%) were transferred to ICU, 58 (16.7%) died. 163 (73.8%) patients were discharged home, 13 (5.9%) to another hospital, 32 (14.5%) to nursing homes, 13 (5.9%) to rehabilitation with an overall median admission-to-discharge time of 53 [IQR 14, 195] days. The strongest predictors for the occurrence of delirium were blood urea nitrogen (minimal depth value (MD): 3.33), age (MD: 3.75), disease severity (as captured by WHO grading; MD: 3.93), leukocyte count (MD: 4.22), the presence of a neurodegenerative history (MD: 4.43), ferritin (MD: 4.46) and creatinine (MD: 4.59) levels. Conclusion The risk of delirium in COVID-19 can be stratified based on COVID-19 disease severity and–similar to delirium associated with other respiratory infections–the factors advanced age, neurodegenerative disease history, and presence of elevated infection and renal-retention parameters. Screening for these risk factors may facilitate early identification of patients at high-risk for COVID-19-associated delirium.

Background and aims: Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) is standard of care for disabling acute ischemic stroke (AIS) within a time window of ⩽ 4.5 h. Some AIS patients cannot be treated with IVT due to limiting contraindications, including heparin usage in an anticoagulating dose within the past 24 h or an elevated activated prothrombin time (aPTT) > 15 s. Protamine is a potent antidote to unfractionated heparin. Objectives: The objective of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of IVT in AIS patients after antagonization of unfractionated heparin with protamine. Methods: Patients from our stroke center (between January 2015 and September 2021) treated with IVT after heparin antagonization with protamine were analyzed. National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) was used for stroke severity and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) for outcome assessment. Substantial neurological improvement was defined as the difference between admission and discharge NIHSS of ⩾8 or discharge NIHSS of ⩽1. Good outcome at follow-up after 3 months was defined as mRS 0–2. Safety data were obtained for mortality, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), and for adverse events due to protamine. Second, a systematic review was performed searching PubMed and Scopus for studies and case reviews presenting AIS patients treated with IVT after heparin antagonization with protamine. The search was limited from January 1, 2011 to September 29, 2021. Furthermore, we conducted a propensity score matching comparing protamine-treated patients to a control IVT group without protamine (ratio 2:1, match tolerance 0.2). Results: A total of 16 patients, 5 treated in our hospital and 11 from literature, [65.2 ± 13.1 years, 37.5% female, median premorbid mRS (pmRS) 1 (IQR 1, 4)] treated with IVT after heparin antagonization using protamine were included and compared to 31 IVT patients [76.2 ± 10.9 years, 45% female, median pmRS 1 (IQR 0, 2)]. Substantial neurological improvement was evident in 68.8% of protamine-treated patients versus 38.7% of control patients ( p = 0.028). Good clinical outcome at follow-up was observed in 56.3% versus 58.1% of patients ( p = 0.576). No adverse events due to protamine were reported, one patient suffered sICH after secondary endovascular thrombectomy of large vessel occlusion. Mortality was 6.3% versus 22.6% ( p = 0.236). Conclusion: IVT after heparin antagonization with protamine seems to be safe and, prospectively, may extend the number of AIS patients who can benefit from reperfusion treatment using IVT. Further prospective registry trials would be helpful to further investigate the clinical applicability of heparin antagonization.

Post-stroke delirium (PSD) after intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is considered to be even more detrimental compared to that after ischemic stroke. Treatment options for post-ICH PSD remain limited. This study aimed at investigating to what extent prophylactic melatonin administration may have beneficial effects on post-ICH PSD. We performed a mono-centric, non-randomized, non-blinded, prospective cohort study, including 339 consecutive ICH patients admitted to the Stroke Unit (SU) from December 2015 to December 2020. The cohort consisted of ICH patients who underwent standard care (defined as the control group) and ICH patients who additionally received prophylactic melatonin (2 mg per day, at night) within 24 h of ICH onset until the discharge from the SU. The primary endpoint was post-ICH PSD prevalence. The secondary endpoints were: (i) PSD duration and (ii) the duration of SU stay. The PSD prevalence was higher in the melatonin treated cohort compared to the propensity score-matched (PSM) control group. Post-ICH PSD patients receiving melatonin had shorter SU-stay durations, and shorter PSD durations, although not statistically significant. This study shows no efficacy in limiting post-ICH PSD with preventive melatonin administration.