Neuropsychiatric complications of coronavirus disease 2019: Mount Sinai Health System cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the frequency of neuropsychiatric complications among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and their association with pre-existing comorbidities and clinical outcomes. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients hospitalized with COVID-19 within a large multicenter New York City health system between March 15, 2020 and May 17, 2021 and randomly selected a representative cohort for detailed chart review. Clinical data, including the occurrence of neuropsychiatric complications (categorized as either altered mental status [AMS] or other neuropsychiatric complications) and in-hospital mortality, were extracted using an electronic medical record database and individual chart review. Associations between neuropsychiatric complications, comorbidities, laboratory findings, and in-hospital mortality were assessed using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Our study cohort consisted of 974 patients, the majority were admitted during the first wave of the pandemic. Patients were treated with anticoagulation (88.4%), glucocorticoids (24.8%), and remdesivir (10.5%); 18.6% experienced severe COVID-19 pneumonia (evidenced by ventilator requirement). Neuropsychiatric complications occurred in 58.8% of patients; 39.8% experienced AMS; and 19.0% experienced at least one other complication (seizures in 1.4%, ischemic stroke in 1.6%, hemorrhagic stroke in 1.0%) or symptom (headache in 11.4%, anxiety in 6.8%, ataxia in 6.3%). Higher odds of mortality, which occurred in 22.0%, were associated with AMS, ventilator support, increasing age, and higher serum inflammatory marker levels. Anticoagulant therapy was associated with lower odds of mortality and AMS. CONCLUSION: Neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19, especially AMS, were common, varied, and associated with in-hospital mortality in a diverse multicenter cohort at an epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cut-off scores for mild and moderate dementia on the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-III and the Mini-Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination compared with the Mini-Mental State Examination.

AIMS AND METHOD: We aimed to establish cut-off scores to stage dementia on the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-III (ACE-III) and the Mini-Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination (M-ACE) compared with scores traditionally used with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Our cross-sectional study recruited 80 patients and carers from secondary care services in the UK. RESULTS: A score ≤76 on the ACE-III and ≤19 on the M-ACE correlated well with MMSE cut-offs for mild dementia, with a good fit on the receiver operating characteristic analysis for both the ACE-III and M-ACE. The cut-off for moderate dementia had lower sensitivity and specificity. There were low to moderate correlations between the cognitive scales and scales for everyday functioning and behaviour. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Our findings allow an objective interpretation of scores on the ACE-III and the M-ACE relative to the MMSE, which may be helpful for clinical services and research trials.

Older adults with epilepsy and COVID-19: Outcomes in a multi-hospital health system.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with high rates of mortality and morbidity in older adults, especially those with pre-existing conditions. There is little work investigating how neurological conditions affect older adults with COVID-19. We aimed to compare in-hospital outcomes, including mortality, in older adults with and without epilepsy. METHODS: This retrospective study in a large multicenter New York health system included consecutive older patients (age ≥65 years) either with or without epilepsy who were admitted with COVID-19 between 3/2020-5/2021. Epilepsy was identified using a validated International Classification of Disease (ICD) and antiseizure medicationbased case definition. Univariate comparisons were calculated using Chi-square, Fisher's exact, Mann-Whitney U, or Student's t-tests. Multivariable logistic regression models were generated to examine factors associated with mortality, discharge disposition and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: We identified 5384 older adults admitted with COVID-19 of whom 173 (3.21 %) had epilepsy. Mean age was significantly lower in those with (75.44, standard deviation (SD): 7.23) compared to those without epilepsy (77.98, SD: 8.68, p = 0.007). Older adults with epilepsy were more likely to be ventilated (35.84 % vs. 16.18 %, p < 0.001), less likely to be discharged home (21.39 % vs. 43.12 %, p < 0.001), had longer median LOS (13 days vs. 8 days, p < 0.001), and had higher in-hospital death (35.84 % vs. 28.29 %, p = 0.030) compared to those without epilepsy. Epilepsy in older adults was associated with increased odds of in-hospital death (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1.55; 95 % CI 1.12-2.14, p = 0.032), non-routine discharge disposition (aOR, 3.34; 95 % CI 2.21-5.03, p < 0.001), and longer LOS (46.46 % 95 % CI 34 %-59 %, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In models that adjusted for multiple confounders including comorbidity and age, our study found that epilepsy was still associated with higher in-hospital mortality, longer LOS and worse discharge dispositions in older adults with COVID-19 higher in-hospital mortality, longer LOS and worse discharge dispositions in older adults with COVID-19. This work reinforces that epilepsy is a risk factor for worse outcomes in older adults admitted with COVID-19. Timely identification and treatment of COVID-19 in epilepsy may improve outcomes in older people with epilepsy.

In-hospital outcomes in patients with and without epilepsy diagnosed with COVID-19-A cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with mortality in persons with comorbidities. The aim of this study was to evaluate in-hospital outcomes in patients with COVID-19 with and without epilepsy. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients with COVID-19 admitted to a multicenter health system between March 15, 2020, and May 17, 2021. Patients with epilepsy were identified using a validated International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM)/ICD-10-CM case definition. Logistic regression models and Kaplan-Meier analyses were conducted for mortality and non-routine discharges (i.e., not discharged home). An ordinary least-squares regression model was fitted for length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: We identified 9833 people with COVID-19 including 334 with epilepsy. On univariate analysis, people with epilepsy had significantly higher ventilator use (37.70% vs 14.30%, p < .001), intensive care unit (ICU) admissions (39.20% vs 17.70%, p < .001) mortality rate (29.60% vs 19.90%, p < .001), and longer LOS (12 days vs 7 days, p < .001). and fewer were discharged home (29.64% vs 57.37%, p < .001). On multivariate analysis, only non-routine discharge (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.00-3.70; p < .001) and LOS (32.50% longer, 95% CI 22.20%-43.60%; p < .001) were significantly different. Factors associated with higher odds of mortality in epilepsy were older age (aOR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.08; p < .001), ventilator support (aOR 7.18, 95% CI 3.12-16.48; p < .001), and higher Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) (aOR 1.18, 95% CI 1.04-1.34; p = .010). In epilepsy, admissions between August and December 2020 or January and May 2021 were associated with a lower odds of non-routine discharge and decreased LOS compared to admissions between March and July 2020, but this difference was not statistically significant. SIGNIFICANCE: People with COVID-19 who had epilepsy had a higher odds of non-routine discharge and longer LOS but not higher mortality. Older age (≥65), ventilator use, and higher CCI were associated with COVID-19 mortality in epilepsy. This suggests that older adults with epilepsy and multimorbidity are more vulnerable than those without and should be monitored closely in the setting of COVID-19.

Relationships among hospital acute ischemic stroke volumes, hospital characteristics, and outcomes in the US.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Prior research on volume-based patient outcomes related to acute ischemic stroke (AIS) have demonstrated contradictory results and fail to reflect recent advances in stroke care. We sought to examine contemporary relationships between hospital AIS volumes and outcomes. METHODS: We used complete Medicare datasets in a retrospective cohort study using validated International Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision codes to identify patients admitted with AIS from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2019. AIS volume was calculated as the total number of AIS admissions per hospital during the study period. We examined several hospital characteristics by AIS volume quartile. We performed adjusted logistic regressions testing associations of AIS volume quartiles with: inpatient mortality, receipt of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) and endovascular therapy (ET), discharge home, and 30-day outpatient visit. We adjusted for sex, age, Charlson comorbidity score, teaching hospital status, MDI, hospital urban-rural designation, stroke certification status and ICU and neurologist availability at the hospital. RESULTS: There were 952400 AIS admissions among 5084 US hospitals; AIS 4-year volume quartiles were: 1st: 1-8 AIS admissions; 2nd: 9-44; 3rd: 45-237; 4th: 238+. Highest quartile hospitals more often were stroke-certified (49.1% vs 8.7% in lowest quartile, p<0.0001), with ICU bed availability (19.8% vs 4.1%, p<0.0001) and with neurologist expertise (91.1% vs 3%, p<0.0001). In the highest AIS quartile (compared to the lowest quartile), there was lower inpatient mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.71 [95%CI 0.57-0.87, p<0.0001]), lower 30-day mortality (0.55 [0.49-0.62], p<0.0001), greater receipt of tPA (6.60 [3.19-13.65], p<0.0001) and ET (16.43 [10.64-25.37], p<0.0001, and greater likelihood of discharge home (1.38 [1.22-1.56], p<0.0001). However, when the highest quartile hospitals were examined separately, higher volumes were associated with higher mortality despite higher rates of tPA and ET receipt. CONCLUSIONS: High AIS-volume hospitals have greater utilization of acute stroke interventions, stroke certification and availability of neurologist and ICU care. These features likely play a role in the better outcomes observed at such centers, including inpatient and 30-day mortality and discharge home. However, the highest volume centers had higher mortality despite greater receipt of interventions. Further research is needed to better understand volume-outcome relationships in AIS to improve care at lower volume centers.

Practice-informed guidance for undertaking remotely delivered mental health research.

BACKGROUND: The assessment and monitoring of health conditions using remote or online delivery is an emerging interest in healthcare systems globally but is not routinely used in mental health research. There is a growing need to offer remotely delivered appointments in mental health research. There is a lack of practical guidance about how nurse researchers can undertake remote research appointments ethically and safely, while maintaining the scientific integrity of the research. AIM: To provide mental health nurse researchers with information about important issues to consider when assessing the appropriateness of remotely delivered research and methods to support the development of a supportive research relationship. DISCUSSION: The practice guidance and checklist include issues a nurse researcher should consider when assessing suitability and eligibility for remotely delivered research visits, such as ethical considerations and arrangements, safety, communication, and identifying participants requiring further support. This article addresses processes to follow for assessing mental capacity, obtaining informed consent and collaboratively completing research measures. CONCLUSION: Remotely delivered research appointments could be acceptable and efficient ways to obtain informed consent and collect data. Additional checks need to be in place to identify and escalate concerns about safeguarding or risks. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Practical guidance for mental health nurse researchers when determining the appropriateness of remote research visits for participants, and an adaptable checklist for undertaking remote research appointments are outlined.