Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection causes a wide variety of neurological disorders by affecting both central and peripheral nervous systems. The cytokine storm (CS) has been blamed for the development of severe neurological disorders in COVID-19. However, the relationship between COVID-19 CS and neurological manifestations has not been adequately studied. Thus, we aimed to investigate the neurological presentations in patients with COVID-19 CS.

The study population consisted of hospitalized moderate-to-severe COVID-19 patients. It was divided into two groups CS (36 patients, 29.3%) and non-CS (87 patients, 70.7%) based on significant clinical symptoms, elevated inflammatory marker levels, radiological findings, and interleukin-6 levels (IL-6).

The three most common neurological symptoms in the CS group were altered level of consciousness, headache, and unsteadiness. Altered level of consciousness was higher in the CS group (69.4%) than the non-CS group (25.3%) (p:0.001). The frequency of headache was comparable in both groups (p:0.186). The number of patients requiring intensive care unit and intubation was higher in the CS group (p:0.005 and p:0.001). The mortality rate in the CS group (38.9%) was higher than the non-CS group (8.0%) (p:0.001). IL-6, CRP, ferritin, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, procalcitonin, and D-dimer levels were higher in the CS group (for all p:0.001) while lymphocyte count was lower (p:0.003).

The most common neurological presentation in patients with CS was altered level of consciousness. The presence of CS was an independent risk factor for high mortality.

Shortening response time to an emergency call leads to the success of resuscitation by chest compression and defibrillation. However, response by ambulance or fire truck is not fast enough for resuscitation in Japan. In rural areas, response times can be more than 10 minutes. One possible way to shorten the response time is to establish a system of first responders (eg, police officers or firefighters) who are trained appropriately to perform resuscitation. Another possible way is to use a system of Community First Responders (CFRs) who are trained neighbors. At present, there are no call triage protocols to decide if dispatchers should activate CFRs.

The aim of this study was to determine the predictability to detect if dispatchers should activate CFRs.

Two CFR call triage protocols (CFR protocol Ver.0 and Ver.1) were established. The predictability of CFR protocols was examined by comparing the paramedic field reports. From the results of sensitivity of CFR protocol, the numbers of annual CFR activations were calculated. All data were collected, prospectively, for four months from October 1, 2012 through January 31, 2013.

The ROC-AUC values appear slightly higher in CFR protocol Ver.1 (0.857; 95% CI, 79.8-91.7) than in CFR protocol Ver.0 (0.847; 95% CI, 79.0-90.3). The number of annual CFR activations is higher in CFR protocol Ver.0 (7.47) than in CFR protocol Ver.1 (5.45).

Two call triage protocols have almost the same predictability as the Medical Priority Dispatch System (MPDS). The study indicates that CFR protocol Ver.1 is better than CFR protocol Ver.0 because of the higher predictability and low number of activations. Also, it indicates that CFRs who are not medical professionals can respond to a patient with cardiac arrest.

NarikawaK, SakamotoT, KubotaK, SuzukawaM, YonekawaC, YamashitaK, ToyokuniY, YasudaY, KobayashiA, IijimaK. Predictability of the Call Triage Protocol to Detect if Dispatchers Should Activate Community First Responders. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2014;29(5):1-5.

Significant differences exist in the outcome of patients with altered level of consciousness (ALOC) cared for by advanced life support (ALS) compared with basic life support (BLS) prehospital providers.

Patients transported by ambulance to a community teaching hospital during an 11-month period were studied retrospectively. Study patients were those considered not alert by prehospital personnel. Exclusion criteria included: trauma, intoxication, drowning, shock, and cardiac arrest. Data were abstracted from the ambulance reports and hospital records.

Two hundred three patients with an ALOC were identified; 113 were transported by ALS providers (56%) and 90 (44%) by BLS providers. Prehospital levels of consciousness, according to the “alert, verbal, painful, unresponsive” scale (ALS vs BLS) were: “verbal” (40% vs 51%), “painful” (23% vs 23%), and “unresponsive” (37% vs 25%). The mean value for scene time was 15±6 minutes for ALS versus 10±4 minutes for BLS (p <0.001). On arrival in the emergency department, the LOC of 72 (64 %) ALS patients and 58 (64%) BLS patients had improved to “alert.” The level of consciousness in one ALS patient worsened. Fifty-two ALS (46%) and 38 (42%) BLS patients were admitted. Principal final diagnoses were seizure (27% ALS vs 38% BLS), hypoglycemia (23% ALS vs 23% BLS), and stroke (22% ALS vs 20% BLS). Remaining diagnoses each constituted less than 7% of total discharge diagnoses. No statistically significant differences in measures of outcome were noted between ALS or BLS patients. Diagnoses of seizure, stroke, and hypoglycemia were studied individually. No differences in admission rate, mortality rate, or disposition were identified. Hypoglycemic patients conveyed by ALS provider had significantly shorter emergency department treatment times than did those transported by BLS providers (160±62 minutes ALS vs 229±67 minutes BLS [p <0.005]).

Advanced life support levels of care of patients with an ALOC does not significantly change outcome compared with those receiving BLS care with the exception of shorter emergency department treatment times for hypoglycemic patients.