TY - JOUR
T1 - Non-Invasive Multimodal Neuromonitoring in Non-Critically Ill Hospitalized Adult Patients With COVID-19
T2 - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
AU - the COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium
AU - Battaglini, Denise
AU - Premraj, Lavienraj
AU - Huth, Samuel
AU - Fanning, Jonathon
AU - Whitman, Glenn
AU - Arora, Rakesh C.
AU - Bellapart, Judith
AU - Bastos Porto, Diego
AU - Taccone, Fabio Silvio
AU - Suen, Jacky Y.
AU - Li Bassi, Gianluigi
AU - Fraser, John F.
AU - Badenes, Rafael
AU - Cho, Sung Min
AU - Robba, Chiara
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2022 Battaglini, Premraj, Huth, Fanning, Whitman, Arora, Bellapart, Bastos Porto, Taccone, Suen, Li Bassi, Fraser, Badenes, Cho, Robba and the COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium.
PY - 2022/4/14
Y1 - 2022/4/14
N2 - Introduction: Neurological complications are frequent in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). The use of non-invasive neuromonitoring in subjects without primary brain injury but with potential neurological derangement is gaining attention outside the intensive care unit (ICU). This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the use of non-invasive multimodal neuromonitoring of the brain in non-critically ill patients with COVID-19 outside the ICU and quantifies the prevalence of abnormal neuromonitoring findings in this population. Methods: A structured literature search was performed in MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and EMBASE to investigate the use of non-invasive neuromonitoring tools, including transcranial doppler (TCD); optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD); near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS); pupillometry; and electroencephalography (EEG) inpatients with COVID-19 outside the ICU. The proportion of non-ICU patients with CVOID-19 and a particular neurological feature at neuromonitoring at the study time was defined as prevalence. Results: A total of 6,593 records were identified through literature searching. Twenty-one studies were finally selected, comprising 368 non-ICU patients, of whom 97 were considered for the prevalence of meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of electroencephalographic seizures, periodic and rhythmic patterns, slow background abnormalities, and abnormal background on EEG was.17 (95% CI 0.04–0.29), 0.42 (95% CI 0.01–0.82), 0.92 (95% CI 0.83–1.01), and.95 (95% CI 0.088–1.09), respectively. No studies investigating NIRS and ONSD outside the ICU were found. The pooled prevalence for abnormal neuromonitoring findings detected using the TCD and pupillometry were incomputable due to insufficient data. Conclusions: Neuromonitoring tools are non-invasive, less expensive, safe, and bedside available tools with a great potential for both diagnosis and monitoring of patients with COVID-19 at risk of brain derangements. However, extensive literature searching reveals that they are rarely used outside critical care settings. Systematic Review Registration: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=265617, identifier: CRD42021265617.
AB - Introduction: Neurological complications are frequent in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). The use of non-invasive neuromonitoring in subjects without primary brain injury but with potential neurological derangement is gaining attention outside the intensive care unit (ICU). This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the use of non-invasive multimodal neuromonitoring of the brain in non-critically ill patients with COVID-19 outside the ICU and quantifies the prevalence of abnormal neuromonitoring findings in this population. Methods: A structured literature search was performed in MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and EMBASE to investigate the use of non-invasive neuromonitoring tools, including transcranial doppler (TCD); optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD); near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS); pupillometry; and electroencephalography (EEG) inpatients with COVID-19 outside the ICU. The proportion of non-ICU patients with CVOID-19 and a particular neurological feature at neuromonitoring at the study time was defined as prevalence. Results: A total of 6,593 records were identified through literature searching. Twenty-one studies were finally selected, comprising 368 non-ICU patients, of whom 97 were considered for the prevalence of meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of electroencephalographic seizures, periodic and rhythmic patterns, slow background abnormalities, and abnormal background on EEG was.17 (95% CI 0.04–0.29), 0.42 (95% CI 0.01–0.82), 0.92 (95% CI 0.83–1.01), and.95 (95% CI 0.088–1.09), respectively. No studies investigating NIRS and ONSD outside the ICU were found. The pooled prevalence for abnormal neuromonitoring findings detected using the TCD and pupillometry were incomputable due to insufficient data. Conclusions: Neuromonitoring tools are non-invasive, less expensive, safe, and bedside available tools with a great potential for both diagnosis and monitoring of patients with COVID-19 at risk of brain derangements. However, extensive literature searching reveals that they are rarely used outside critical care settings. Systematic Review Registration: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=265617, identifier: CRD42021265617.
KW - COVID-19
KW - coronavirus disease
KW - electroencephalogram
KW - hospital
KW - neuromonitoring
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85133913039
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85133913039#tab=citedBy
U2 - 10.3389/fneur.2022.814405
DO - 10.3389/fneur.2022.814405
M3 - Review article
C2 - 35493827
AN - SCOPUS:85133913039
SN - 1664-2295
VL - 13
JO - Frontiers in Neurology
JF - Frontiers in Neurology
M1 - 814405
ER -