Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to profound changes in the organization of health care systems worldwide. Aims: We sought to measure the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the volumes for mechanical thrombectomy (MT), stroke, and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) hospitalizations over a 3-month period at the height of the pandemic (March 1 to May 31, 2020) compared with two control 3-month periods (immediately preceding and one year prior). Methods: Retrospective, observational, international study, across 6 continents, 40 countries, and 187 comprehensive stroke centers. The diagnoses were identified by their ICD-10 codes and/or classifications in stroke databases at participating centers. Results: The hospitalization volumes for any stroke, ICH, and MT were 26,699, 4,002, and 5,191 in the 3 months immediately before versus 21,576, 3,540, and 4,533 during the first 3 pandemic months, representing declines of 19.2% (95%CI,-19.7 to -18.7), 11.5% (95%CI,-12.6 to -10.6), and 12.7% (95%CI,-13.6 to -11.8), respectively. The decreases were noted across centers with high, mid, and low COVID-19 hospitalization burden, and also across high, mid, and low volume stroke/MT centers. High-volume COVID-19 centers (-20.5%) had greater declines in MT volumes than mid- (-10.1%) and low-volume (-8.7%) centers (p<0.0001). There was a 1.5% stroke rate across 54,366 COVID-19 hospitalizations. SARS-CoV-2 infection was noted in 3.9% (784/20,250) of all stroke admissions. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a global decline in the volume of overall stroke hospitalizations, MT procedures, and ICH admission volumes. Despite geographic variations, these volume reductions were observed regardless of COVID-19 hospitalization burden and pre-pandemic stroke/MT volumes.

BackgroundDespite the recent increase in the number of publications on diagnostic cerebral angiograms using transradial access (TRA), there have been relatively few regarding TRA for neurointerventional cases. Questions of feasibility and safety may still exist among physicians considering TRA for neurointerventional procedures.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed following PRISMA guidelines. Three online databases (MedLine via PubMed, Scopus and Embase) were searched for articles published between January 2000 and December 2019. Search terms included “Transradial access”, “Radial Access”, “Radial artery” AND “Neurointerventions". The reference lists of selected articles and pertinent available non-systematic analysis were reviewed for other potential citations. Primary outcomes measured were access site complications and crossover rates.ResultsTwenty-one studies (n=1342 patients) were included in this review. Two of the studies were prospective while the remaining 19 were retrospective. Six studies (n=616 patients) included TRA carotid stenting only. The rest of the studies included treatment for cerebral aneurysms (n=423), mechanical thrombectomy (n=127), tumor embolization (n=22), and other indications (n=154) such as angioplasty and stenting for vertebrobasilar stenosis, balloon test occlusion, embolization of dural arteriovenous fistula and arteriovenous malformation, chemotherapeutic drug delivery, intra-arterial thrombolysis, and arterial access during a venous stenting procedure. Two (0.15%) major complications and 37 (2.75%) minor complications were reported. Sixty-four (4.77%) patients crossed over to transfemoral access for completion of the procedure. Seven (0.52%) patients crossed over due to access failure and 57 (4.24%) patients crossed over to TFA due to inability to cannulate the target vessel.ConclusionThis systematic review demonstrates that TRA has a relatively low rate of access site complications and crossovers. With increasing familiarity, development of TRA-specific neuroendovascular devices, and the continued reports of its success in the literature, TRA is expected to become more widely used by neurointerventionalists.

Results: Overall mortality at 14 days was 22.8%. Models had a high prediction performance, with the best prediction for overall mortality achieved through Naive Bayes (area under the curve = 0.906). The most significant predictors were the GCS at admission and prehospital GCS, age, and pupil reaction. When predicting the length of stay at the intensive care unit, the Conditional Inference Tree model had the best performance (root mean square error = 1.011), with the most important variable across all models being the GCS at scene.Conclusions: Models for early mortality and hospital length of stay using Machine Learning can achieve high performance when based on registry data even in LMICs. These models have the potential to inform treatment decisions and counsel family members.Level of evidence: This observational study provides a level IV evidence on prognosis after TBI.

Endoscopic disc surgery (EDS) for lumbar spine disc herniation is a well-known but developing field, which is increasingly spreading in the last few years. Rate of recurrence/residual, complications, and outcomes, in comparison with standard microdiscectomy (MD), is still debated and need further data. We performed an extensive review based on the last 6 years of surgical series, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses reported in international, English-written literature. Articles regarding patients treated through endoscopic transforaminal or interlaminar approaches for microdiscectomy (MD) were included in the present review. Papers focused on endoscopic surgery for other spinal diseases were not included. From July 2009 to July 2015, we identified 51 surgical series, 5 systematic reviews, and one meta-analysis reported. In lumbar EDS, rate of complications, length of hospital staying, return to daily activities, and overall patients' satisfaction seem comparable to standard MD. Rate of recurrence/residual seems higher in EDS, although data are nonhomogeneous among different series. Surgical indication and experience of the performing surgeon are crucial factors affecting the outcome. There is growing but still weak evidence that lumbar EDS is a valid and safe alternative to standard open microdiscectomy. Statistically reliable data obtained from randomized controlled trials (better if multicentric) are desirable to further confirm these results.