Search

Background: Acute stroke patients are usually transported to the nearest hospital regardless of their required level of care. This can lead to increased pressure on emergency departments and treatment delay. Objective: The aim of the study was to explore the benefit of a mobile stroke unit (MSU) in the UK National Health Service (NHS) for reduction of hospital admissions. Methods: Prospective cohort audit observation with dispatch of the MSU in the East of England Ambulance Service area in Southend-on-Sea was conducted. Emergency patients categorized as code stroke and headache were included from June 5, 2018, to December 18, 2018. Rate of avoided admission to the accident and emergency (A&E) department, rate of admission directly to target ward, and stroke management metrics were assessed. Results: In 116 MSU-treated patients, the following diagnoses were made: acute stroke, n = 33 (28.4%); transient ischaemic attacks, n = 13 (11.2%); stroke mimics, n = 32 (27.6%); and other conditions, n = 38 (32.8%). Pre-hospital thrombolysis was administered to 8 of 28 (28.6%) ischaemic stroke patients. Pre-hospital diagnosis avoided hospital admission for 29 (25.0%) patients. As hospital treatment was indicated, 35 (30.2%) patients were directly triaged to the stroke unit, 1 patient (0.9%) even directly to the catheter laboratory. Thus, only 50 (43.1%) patients required transfer to the A&E department. Moreover, the MSU enabled thrombolysis with a median dispatch-to-needle time of 42 min (interquartile range, 40–60). Conclusion: This first deployment of an MSU in the UK NHS demonstrated improved triage decision-making for or against hospital admission and admission to the appropriate target ward, thereby reducing pressure on strained A&E departments.

Introduction: During the COVID-19 pandemic, studies reported less number of hospitalizations for acute stroke and reduction in the use of recanalization treatments. This study analyzes nationwide data on stroke admissions and management in the Czech Republic during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We compared the early COVID-19 pandemic (March–May 2020) with the pre-pandemic period (January–February 2020 and March–May 2019): (a) the National Register of Reimbursed Health Services provided volume of all admissions for subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), and ischemic stroke (IS), and volume of recanalization treatments (intravenous thrombolysis [IVT] and mechanical thrombectomy [MT]); (b) Registry of Stroke Care Quality provided door-to-needle time (DNT), onset-to-door time (ODT), and stroke severity at admission (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, NIHSS) for IS. Results: During the pandemic (March–May 2020), the peak number of COVID-19 patients treated in Czech hospitals was 39 per million. In March–May 2020 versus March–May 2019, hospital admissions decreased as follows: stroke overall by 14% (p < 0.001), IS by 14% (p < 0.001), SAH by 15% (p = 0.07), and ICH by 7% (p = 0.17). The mean age was 74 years versus 74 years (p = 0.33), and 52% versus 51% were men (p = 0.34). The volumes of IVT and MT decreased by 14% (p = 0.001) and 19% (p = 0.01), respectively. The proportions of all IS patients receiving IVT or MT remained unchanged, with, respectively, 17% versus 17% receiving IVT (p = 0.86) and 5% versus 5% receiving MT (p = 0.48). DNT and ODT were 24 versus 25 min (p = 0.58) and 168 versus 156 min (p = 0.23), respectively. NIHSS at admission did not differ (6 vs. 6; p = 0.54). Conclusion: Even with a low burden of COVID-19 during the first wave and no change in organization and logistics of stroke services, stroke admissions and volume of recanalization treatments decreased. Public health communication campaigns should encourage people to seek emergency medical care for stroke symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Introduction: Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and thrombotic events (TEs) were reported in patients with COVID-19. Clinical outcome of AIS in the course of COVID-19 remains unknown. We compared early clinical outcome and mortality of COVID-positive (+) patients admitted for AIS with COVID-negative (−) ones. We hypothesized that COVID+ patients would have poorer clinical outcomes and present a higher rate of TEs and mortality compared with COVID− ones. Methods: In this multicentric observational retrospective study, we enrolled patients over 18 years old admitted for AIS in 3 stroke units of the Parisian region during lockdown from March 17, 2020, to May 2, 2020. COVID-19 status as well as demographic, clinical, biological, and imaging data was collected retrospectively from medical records. Poor outcome was defined as modified Rankin score (mRS) 3–6 (3–6) at discharge. We also compared TE frequency and mortality rate through a composite criterion in both groups. Results: Two hundred and sixteen patients were enrolled; mean age was 68 years old, and 63% were male. Forty patients were CO­VID+ (18.5%) and 176 were COVID−. Obesity was statistically more frequent in the COVID+ group (36 vs. 13% p < 0.01). The percentage of patients with mRS (3–6) at discharge was higher in the COVID+ group compared with the COVID− group (60 vs. 41%, p = 0.034). The main predictor of presenting a mRS (3–6) at discharge was high NIHSS score at admission (OR, CI 95%: 1.325, 1.22–1.43). Mortality rate was higher in the COVID+ group (12 vs. 3.4%, p = 0.033) as well as TE frequency (15 vs. 2.8%, p < 0.01). Conclusion: In this study, patients with AIS infected by SARS-CoV-2 showed a poorer early outcome than COVID− ones. However, when compared to other factors, COVID-19 was not a significant predictor of poor outcome. Vascular morbidity and mortality rates were significantly higher in the COVID+ group compared with the COVID− group.

Introduction: We analyzed whether the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis affected acute stroke care in our center during the first 2 months of lockdown in Spain. Methods: This is a single-center, retrospective study. We collected demographic, clinical, and radiological data; time course; and treatment of patients meeting the stroke unit admission criteria from March 14 to May 14, 2020 (COVID-19 period group). Data were compared with the same period in 2019 (pre-COVID-19 period group). Results: 195 patients were analyzed; 83 in the COVID-19 period group, resulting in a 26% decline of acute strokes and transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) admitted to our center compared with the previous year (p = 0.038). Ten patients (12%) tested positive for PCR SARS-CoV-2. The proportion of patients aged 65 years and over was lower in the COVID-19 period group (53 vs. 68.8%, p = 0.025). During the pandemic period, analyzed patients were more frequently smokers (27.7 vs. 10.7%, p = 0.002) and had less frequently history of prior stroke (13.3 vs. 25%, p = 0.043) or atrial fibrillation (9.6 vs. 25%, p = 0.006). ASPECTS score was lower (9 [7–10] vs. 10 [8–10], p = 0.032), NIHSS score was slightly higher (5 [2–14] vs. 4 [2–8], p = 0.122), onset-to-door time was higher (304 [93–760] vs. 197 [91.25–645] min, p = 0.104), and a lower proportion arrived within 4.5 h from onset of symptoms (43.4 vs. 58%, p = 0.043) during the CO­VID-19 period. There were no differences between proportion of patients receiving recanalization treatment (intravenous thrombolysis and/or mechanical thrombectomy) and in-hospital delays. Conclusion: We observed a reduction in the number of acute strokes and TIAs admitted during the COVID-19 period. This drop affected especially elderly patients, and despite a delay in their arrival to the emergency department, the proportion of patients treated with recanalization therapies was preserved.

Background: Social distance, quarantine, pathogen testing, and other preventive strategies implemented during CO­VID-19 pandemic may negatively influence the management of acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Objective: The current study aimed to evaluate the impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on treatment delay of AIS in China. Methods: This study included patients with AIS admitted in 2 hospitals in Jiangsu, China. Patients admitted before and after the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak (January 31, 2020, as officially announced by the Chinese government) were screened to collect sociodemographic data, medical history information, and symptom onset status from clinical medical records and compared for pre- (measured as onset-to-door time [ODT]) and posthospital delay (measured as door-to-needle time [DNT]). The influencing factors for delayed treatment (indicated as onset-to-needle time >4.5 h) were analyzed with multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: A total of 252 patients were included, of which 153 (60.7%) were enrolled before and 99 (39.3%) after the COVID-19 pandemic. ODT increased from 202 min (interquartile range [IQR] 65–492) before to 317 min (IQR 75–790) after the COVID-19 pandemic (p = 0.001). DNT increased from 50 min (IQR 40–75) before to 65 min (IQR 48–84) after the COVID-19 pandemic (p = 0.048). The proportion of patients with intravenous thrombolysis in those with AIS was decreased significantly after the pandemic (15.4% vs. 20.1%; p = 0.030). Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that patients after COVID-19 pandemic, lower educational level, rural residency, mild symptoms, small artery occlusion, and transported by other means than ambulance were associated with delayed treatment. Conclusions: COVID-19 pandemic has remarkable impacts on the management of AIS. Both pre- and posthospital delays were prolonged significantly, and proportion of patients arrived within the 4.5-h time window for intravenous thrombolysis treatment was decreased. Given that anti-COVID-19 measures are becoming medical routines, efforts are warranted to shorten the delay so that the outcomes of stroke could be improved.

Introduction: We examined the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on our regional stroke thrombectomy service in the UK. Methods: This was a single-center health service evaluation. We began testing for COVID-19 on 3 March and introduced a modified “COVID Stroke Thrombectomy Pathway” on 18 March. We analyzed the clinical, procedural and outcome data for 61 consecutive stroke thrombectomy patients between 1 January and 30 April. We compared the data for January and February (“pre-COVID,” n = 33) versus March and April (“during COVID,” n = 28). Results: Patient demographics were similar between the 2 groups (mean age 71 ± 12.8 years, 39% female). During the COVID-19 pandemic, (a) total stroke admissions fell by 17% but the thrombectomy rate was maintained at 20% of ischemic strokes; (b) successful recanalization rate was maintained at 81%; (c) early neurological outcomes (neurological improvement following thrombectomy and inpatient mortality) were not significantly different; (d) use of general anesthesia fell significantly from 85 to 32% as intended; and (e) time intervals from onset to arrival, groin puncture, and recanalization were not significantly different, whereas internal delays for external referrals significantly improved for door-to-groin puncture (48 [interquartile range (IQR) 39–57] vs. 33 [IQR 27–44] minutes, p = 0.013) and door-to-recanalization (82.5 [IQR 61–110] vs. 60 [IQR 55–70] minutes, p = 0.018). Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative impact on the stroke admission numbers but not stroke thrombectomy rate, successful recanalization rate, or early neurological outcome. Internal delays actually improved during the COVID-19 pandemic. Further studies should examine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on longer term outcome.

This commentary will focus on the role of thrombectomy for the treatment of embolic stroke during the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We will begin with review of recently promulgated guidelines for use of thrombectomy in COVID-19-associated stroke. We will then survey the reported experience of thrombectomy applied to treatment of large-vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke in COVID-19. We will conclude by discussing unusual challenges confronted by neuro-interventionalists seeking to perform thrombectomy in COVID-19 patients with acute LVO stroke.