Table 2 Neurological characteristics.

From: Prevalence and prognostic value of neurological affections in hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 based on objective assessments

Clinical findings (N, %)a

Electrophysiological and neuropsychological assessment

Central affection

Peripheral affection

Autonomous affection

Cognitive affection

Pathology

No Pathology

Pathology

No Pathology

Pathology

No Pathology

Pathology

No Pathology

All patients (N = 184, 100%)b

46 (25.0%Total, 33.6%CNS)

91 (49.5%Total, 66.4%CNS)

91 (49.5%Total, 66.9%PNS)

45 (24.5%Total, 33.1%PNS)

29 (15.8%Total, 25.0%ANS)

87 (47.3%Total, 75.0%ANS)

99 (53.8%Total, 63.1%Cog)

58(31.5%Total, 36.9%Cog)

Patients treated in ICU (N = 21, 11.4%)c

12 (57.1%ICU, 60%CNS)

8 (38.1%ICU, 40%CNS)

18 (85.7%ICU, 90%PNS)

2 (9.5%ICU, 10%PNS)

10 (47.6%ICU, 55.6%ANS)

8(38.1%ICU, 44.4%ANS)

9 (42.9%ICU, 75.0%Cog)

3 (14.3%ICU, 25.0%Cog)

Patients not treated in ICU (N = 163, 88.6%)c

34 (20.9%NoICU, 29.1%CNS)

83 (50.9%NoICU, 70.9%CNS)

73 (44.8%NoICU, 62.9%PNS)

43 (26.4%NoICU, 37.1%PNS)

19 (11.7%NoICU, 19.4%ANS)

79 (48.5%NoICU, 80.6%ANS)

90 (55.2%NoICU, 62.1%Cog)

55 (33.7%NoICU, 37.9%Cog)

Comatose/sedated patients (N = 8, 4.3%)

5 (62.5%Total, 62.5%CNS)

3 (37.5%Total, 37.5%CNS)

7 (87.5%Total, 87.5%PNS)

1 (12.5%Total, 12.5%PNS)

7 (87.5%Total, 100%ANS)

NA

NA

NA

Patients with affections in the functional systemsd

 Any (N = 162)e

  Yes (N = 76, 41.3%  Total, 46.9%EDSS)

N = 16

N = 42

N = 38

N = 20

N = 9

N = 40

N = 48

N = 25

  No (N = 86, 46.7%Total, 53.1%EDSS)

N = 20

N = 47

N = 40

N = 26

N = 10

N = 44

N = 39

N = 32

Brainstem (N = 164)f

Measured by BR

Yes (N = 32, 17.4%Total, 19.5%FSS)

N = 0

N = 24

N = 1

N = 23

NA

NA

NA

NA

No (N = 132, 71.7%Total, 80.5%FSS)

N = 10

N = 85

N = 2

N = 93

NA

NA

NA

NA

Pyramidal (N = 162)

Measured by MEP and/or NCS

 Yes (N = 35, 19.0%Total, 21.6%FSS)

N = 2

N = 16

N = 7

N = 17

NA

NA

NA

NA

 No (N = 127, 69.0%Total, 78.4%FSS)

N = 21

N = 79

N = 36

N = 64

NA

NA

NA

NA

Cerebellar (N = 162)

Measured by NCS

 Yes (N = 17, 9.2%Total, 10.5%FSS)

NA

NA

N = 6

N = 4

NA

NA

NA

NA

 No (N = 145, 78.8%Total, 89.5%FSS)

NA

NA

N = 75

N = 38

NA

NA

NA

NA

Sensory (N = 162)g

Measured by multi-channel SSEP and/or NCS

 Yes (N = 18, 9.8%Total, 11.1%FSS)

N = 1

N = 15

N = 5

N = 11

NA

NA

NA

NA

 No (N = 144, 78.3%Total, 88.9%FSS)

N = 6

N = 97

N = 20

N = 83

NA

NA

NA

NA

Cerebral (N = 161)

Measured by SDMT and/or MoCA

 Yes (N = 2, 1.1%Total, 1.2%FSS)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

N = 1

N = 1

 No (N = 159, 86.4%Total, 98.8%FSS)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

N = 86

N = 56

Ambulation (N = 158)

Measured by NCS, MEP, multi-channel SSEP, SSR, BR

 Yes (N = 3, 1.6%Total, 1.9%FSS)

N = 0

N = 3

N = 2

N = 1

N = 0

N = 1

NA

NA

 No (N = 155, 84.2%Total, 98.1%FSS)

N = 36

N = 83

N = 75

N = 43

N = 19

N = 81

NA

NA

  1. Prevalence rates are displayed for the total sample and for the subgroup of patients that received the corresponding assessment(s) (indicated by subscripted ‘CNS’, ‘PNS’, ‘ANS’, ‘Cog’, ‘FSS’).
  2. ICU, Intensive care unit; BR, Blink reflex; MEP, Motor evoked potentials; SSEP, Somatosensory evoked potentials; NCS, Nerve conduction studies, SSR, Sympathetic skin response; SDMT, Symbol digit modalities test; MoCA, Montreal Cognitive Assessment; NA, Not applicable; FSS, Functional system score; CNS,  Central nervous system; PNS,  Peripheral nervous system; ANS, Autonomous nervous system.
  3. aMissing as follows: 22 neurological examination, 20 FSS Brainstem, 22 FSS Pyramidal, 22 FSS Cerebellar, 22 FSS Sensory, 23 FSS Cerebral, 26 Ambulation.
  4. bElectrophysiological assessment took place in N = 139 and neuropsychological assessment took place in N = 155. N = 3 presented with abnormalities in the electrophysiological assessment that could not be classified as central, peripheral or autonomous.
  5. cAt the time of examination.
  6. dDefined as a FSS > 0.
  7. eDefined as an Expanded Disability Status Scale > 0 (visual acuity and bowel and bladder function were not taken into account because it was not possible to differentiate between new and preexisting symptoms).
  8. fN = 2 presented with abnormalities in the BR that could not be unambiguously classified as peripheral or central. One of them showed no clinical signs of brainstem dysfunction in the neurological exam. The other was not examined neurologically.
  9. gN = 1 with missing neurological examination presented with abnormalities in the SSEP that could not be unambiguously classified as peripheral or central.
Back to article page