Search

Background and Purpose: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has added challenges to providing quality acute stroke care due to the reallocation of stroke resources to COVID-19. Case series suggest that patients with COVID-19 have more severe strokes; however, no large series have compared stroke outcomes with contemporary non-COVID-19 patients. Purpose was to analyze the impact of COVID-19 pandemic in stroke care and to evaluate stroke outcomes according to the diagnosis of COVID-19., Methods: Retrospective multicenter cohort study including consecutive acute stroke patients admitted to 7 stroke centers from February 25 to April 25, 2020 (first 2 months of the COVID-19 outbreak in Madrid). The quality of stroke care was measured by the number of admissions, recanalization treatments, and time metrics. The primary outcome was death or dependence at discharge., Results: A total of 550 acute stroke patients were admitted. A significant reduction in the number of admissions and secondary interhospital transfers was found. COVID-19 was confirmed in 105 (19.1%) patients, and a further 19 patients were managed as suspected COVID-19 (3.5%). No differences were found in the rates of reperfusion therapies in ischemic strokes (45.5% non-COVID-19, 35.7% confirmed COVID-19, and 40% suspected COVID-19; P =0.265). However, the COVID-19 group had longer median door-to-puncture time (110 versus 80 minutes), which was associated with the performance of chest computed tomography. Multivariate analysis confirmed poorer outcomes for confirmed or suspected COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratios, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.12-3.76] and 3.56 [95% CI, 1.15-11.05], respectively)., Conclusions: This study confirms that patients with COVID-19 have more severe strokes and poorer outcomes despite similar acute management. A well-established stroke care network helps to diminish the impact of such an outbreak in stroke care, reducing secondary transfers and allowing maintenance of reperfusion therapies, with a minor impact on door-to-puncture times, which were longer in patients who underwent chest computed tomography.

Objective: Current prehospital scales used to detect large vessel occlusion reveal very low endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) rates among selected patients. We developed a novel prehospital scale, the Madrid-Direct Referral to Endovascular Center (M-DIRECT), to identify EVT candidates for direct transfer to EVT-capable centers (EVT-Cs). The scale evaluated clinical examination, systolic blood pressure, and age. Since March 2017, patients closer to a stroke unit without EVT capabilities and an M-DIRECT positive score have been transferred to the nearest EVT-C. To test the performance of the scale-based routing protocol, we compared its outcomes with those of a simultaneous cohort of patients directly transferred to an EVT-C., Methods: In this prospective observational study of consecutive patients with stroke code seen by emergency medical services, we compared diagnoses, treatments, and outcomes of patients who were closer to an EVT-C (mothership cohort) with those transferred according to the M-DIRECT score (M-DIRECT cohort)., Results: The M-DIRECT cohort included 327 patients and the mothership cohort 214 patients. In the M-DIRECT cohort, 227 patients were negative and 100 were positive. Twenty-four (10.6%) patients required secondary transfer, leaving 124 (38%) patients from the M-DIRECT cohort admitted to an EVT-C. EVT rates were similar for patients with ischemic stroke in both cohorts (30.9% vs 31.5%). The M-DIRECT scale had 79% sensitivity, 82% specificity, and 53% positive predictive value for EVT. Recanalization and independence rates at 3 months did not differ between the cohorts., Conclusions: The M-DIRECT scale was highly accurate for EVT, with treatment rates and outcomes similar to those of a mothership paradigm, thereby avoiding EVT-C overload with a low rate of secondary transfers., (© 2020 American Academy of Neurology.)