Search

Abstract Background Persisting coma is a common complication in (neuro)intensive care in neurological disease such as acute ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage or subarachnoid hemorrhage. Amantadine acts as a nicotinic receptor antagonist, dopamine receptor agonist and non-competitive N-Methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist. Amantadine is a long-known drug, originally approved for treatment of influenza A and Parkinson`s Disease. It has been proven effective in improving vigilance after traumatic brain injury. The underlying mechanisms remain largely unknown, albeit anti-glutamatergic and dopaminergic effects might be most relevant. With limited evidence of amantadine efficacy in non-traumatic pathologies, the aim of our study is to assess the effects of amantadine for neuroenhancement in non-traumatic neurointensive patients with persisting coma. Methods An investigator-initiated, monocenter, phase IIb proof of concept open-label pilot study will be carried out. Based on the Simon design, 43 adult (neuro)intensive care patients who meet the clinical criteria of persisting coma not otherwise explained and

Abstract Background Stroke is one of the most frequent diseases, and half of the stroke survivors are left with permanent impairment. Prediction of individual outcome is still difficult. Many but not all patients with stroke improve by approximately 1.7 times the initial impairment, that has been termed proportional recovery rule. The present study aims at identifying factors predicting motor outcome after stroke more accurately than before, and observe associations of rehabilitation treatment with outcome. Methods The study is designed as a multi-centre prospective clinical observational trial. An extensive primary data set of clinical, neuroimaging, electrophysiological, and laboratory data will be collected within 96 h of stroke onset from patients with relevant upper extremity deficit, as indexed by a Fugl-Meyer-Upper Extremity (FM-UE) score ≤ 50. At least 200 patients will be recruited. Clinical scores will include the FM-UE score (range 0–66, unimpaired function is indicated by a score of 66), Action Research Arm Test, modified Rankin Scale, Barthel Index and Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale. Follow-up clinical scores and applied types and amount of rehabilitation treatment will be documented in the rehabilitation hospitals. Final follow-up clinical scoring will be performed 90 days after the stroke event. The primary endpoint is the change in FM-UE defined as 90 days FM-UE minus initial FM-UE, divided by initial FM-UE impairment. Changes in the other clinical scores serve as secondary endpoints. Machine learning methods will be employed to analyze the data and predict primary and secondary endpoints based on the primary data set and the different rehabilitation treatments. Discussion If successful, outcome and relation to rehabilitation treatment in patients with acute motor stroke will be predictable more reliably than currently possible, leading to personalized neurorehabilitation. An important regulatory aspect of this trial is the first-time implementation of systematic patient data transfer between emergency and rehabilitation hospitals, which are divided institutions in Germany. Trial registration This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04688970 ) on 30 December 2020.

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.

This review article summarizes various functions of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) that are related to language processing. To this end, its connectivity with the left-dominant perisylvian language network was considered, as well as its interaction with other functional networks that, directly or indirectly, contribute to language processing. Language-related functions of the DLPFC comprise various aspects of pragmatic processing such as discourse management, integration of prosody, interpretation of nonliteral meanings, inference making, ambiguity resolution, and error repair. Neurophysiologically, the DLPFC seems to be a key region for implementing functional connectivity between the language network and other functional networks, including cortico-cortical as well as subcortical circuits. Considering clinical aspects, damage to the DLPFC causes psychiatric communication deficits rather than typical aphasic language syndromes. Although the number of well-controlled studies on DLPFC language functions is still limited, the DLPFC might be an important target region for the treatment of pragmatic language disorders.

Introduction: Acute stroke care delivered by interdisciplinary teams is time-sensitive. Simulation-based team training is a promising tool to improve team performance in medical operations. It has the potential to improve process times, team communication, patient safety, and staff satisfaction. We aim to assess whether a multi-level approach consisting of a stringent workflow revision based on peer-to-peer review and 2–3 one-day in situ simulation trainings can improve acute stroke care processing times in high volume neurocenters within a 6 months period.Methods and Analysis: The trial is being carried out in a pre-test-post-test design at 7 tertiary care university hospital neurocenters in Germany. The intervention is directed at the interdisciplinary multiprofessional stroke teams. Before and after the intervention, process times of all direct-to-center stroke patients receiving IV thrombolysis (IVT) and/or endovascular therapy (EVT) will be recorded. The primary outcome measure will be the “door-to-needle” time of all consecutive stroke patients directly admitted to the neurocenters who receive IVT. Secondary outcome measures will be intervention-related process times of the fraction of patients undergoing EVT and effects on team communication, perceived patient safety, and staff satisfaction via a staff questionnaire.Interventions: We are applying a multi-level intervention in cooperation with three “STREAM multipliers” from each center. First step is a central meeting of the multipliers at the sponsor's institution with the purposes of algorithm review in a peer-to-peer process that is recorded in a protocol and an introduction to the principles of simulation training and debriefing as well as crew resource management and team communication. Thereafter, the multipliers cooperate with the stroke team trainers from the sponsor's institution to plan and execute 2–3 one-day simulation courses in situ in the emergency department and CT room of the trial centers whereupon they receive teaching materials to perpetuate the trainings.Clinical Trial Registration: STREAM is a registered trial at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03228251.