Recent case-series of small size implied a pathophysiological association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe large-vessel acute ischemic stroke. Given that severe strokes are typically associated with poor prognosis and can be very efficiently treated with recanalization techniques, confirmation of this putative association is urgently warranted in a large representative patient cohort to alert stroke clinicians, and inform pre- and in-hospital acute stroke patient pathways. We pooled all consecutive patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and acute ischemic stroke in 28 sites from 16 countries. To assess whether stroke severity and outcomes (assessed at discharge or at the latest assessment for those patients still hospitalized) in patients with acute ischemic stroke are different between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19, we performed 1:1 propensity score matching analyses of our COVID-19 patients with non-COVID-19 patients registered in the Acute Stroke Registry and Analysis of Lausanne Registry between 2003 and 2019. Between January 27, 2020, and May 19, 2020, 174 patients (median age 71.2 years; 37.9% females) with COVID-19 and acute ischemic stroke were hospitalized (median of 12 patients per site). The median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale was 10 (interquartile range [IQR], 4–18). In the 1:1 matched sample of 336 patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19, the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale was higher in patients with COVID-19 (10 [IQR, 4–18] versus 6 [IQR, 3–14]), P =0.03; (odds ratio, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.08–2.65] for higher National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score). There were 48 (27.6%) deaths, of which 22 were attributed to COVID-19 and 26 to stroke. Among 96 survivors with available information about disability status, 49 (51%) had severe disability at discharge. In the propensity score-matched population (n=330), patients with COVID-19 had higher risk for severe disability (median mRS 4 [IQR, 2–6] versus 2 [IQR, 1–4], P <0.001) and death (odds ratio, 4.3 [95% CI, 2.22–8.30]) compared with patients without COVID-19. Our findings suggest that COVID-19 associated ischemic strokes are more severe with worse functional outcome and higher mortality than non-COVID-19 ischemic strokes.

Background: Several clinical scales have been developed for predicting stroke recurrence. These clinical scores could be extremely useful to guide triage decisions. Our goal was to compare the very early predictive accuracy of the most relevant clinical scores [age, blood pressure, clinical features and duration of symptoms (ABCD) score, ABCD and diabetes (ABCD2) score, ABCD and brain infarction on imaging score, ABCD2 and brain infarction on imaging score, ABCD and prior TIA within 1 week of the index event (ABCD3) score, California Risk Score, Essen Stroke Risk Score and Stroke Prognosis Instrument II] in consecutive transient ischemic attack (TIA) patients. Methods: Between April 2008 and December 2009, we included 1,255 consecutive TIA patients from 30 Spanish stroke centers (PROMAPA study). A neurologist treated all patients within the first 48 h after symptom onset. The duration and typology of clinical symptoms, vascular risk factors and etiological work-ups were prospectively recorded in a case report form in order to calculate established prognostic scores. We determined the early short-term risk of stroke (at 7 and 90 days). To evaluate the performance of each model, we calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Cox proportional hazards multivariate analyses determining independent predictors of stroke recurrence using the different components of all clinical scores were calculated. Results: We calculated clinical scales for 1,137 patients (90.6%). Seven-day and 90-day stroke risks were 2.6 and 3.8%, respectively. Large-artery atherosclerosis (LAA) was observed in 190 patients (16.7%). We could confirm the predictive value of the ABCD3 score for stroke recurrence at the 7-day follow-up [0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54–0.77] and 90-day follow-up (0.61, 95% CI 0.52–0.70), which improved when we added vascular imaging information and derived ABCD3V scores by assigning 2 points for at least 50% symptomatic stenosis on carotid or intracranial imaging (0.69, 95% CI 0.57–0.81, and 0.63, 95% CI 0.51–0.69, respectively). When we evaluated each component of all clinical scores using Cox regression analyses, we observed that prior TIA and LAA were independent predictors of stroke recurrence at the 7-day follow-up [hazard ratio (HR) 3.97, 95% CI 1.91–8.26, p < 0.001, and HR 3.11, 95% CI 1.47–6.58, p = 0.003, respectively] and 90-day follow-up (HR 2.35, 95% CI 1.28–4.31, p = 0.006, and HR 2.20, 95% CI 1.15–4.21, p = 0.018, respectively). Conclusion: All published scores that do not take into account vascular imaging or prior TIA when identifying stroke risk after TIA failed to predict risk when applied by neurologists. Clinical scores were not able to replace extensive emergent diagnostic evaluations such as vascular imaging, and they should take into account unstable patients with recent prior transient episodes.

No abstract

However, the complexity of this technique justifies the development of collaborative stroke center networks with interhospital transfers of eligible patients. 6 To date, these stroke care networks have been implemented in regional settings, connecting a comprehensive stroke center (CSC) with primary stroke centers and general hospitals. 6 This approach has been designed principally to improve the rates of IVT in IS, but it has also played an important role in patients eligible Background and Purpose-The complexity of endovascular revascularization treatment (ERT) in acute ischemic stroke and the small number of patients eligible for treatment justify the development of stroke center networks with interhospital patient transfers. However, this approach might result in futile transfers (ie, the transfer of patients who ultimately do not undergo ERT). Our aim was to analyze the frequency of these futile transfers and the reasons for discarding ERT and to identify the possible associated factors. Methods-We analyzed an observational prospective ERT registry from a stroke collaboration ERT network consisting of 3 hospitals. There were interhospital transfers from the first attending hospital to the on-call ERT center for the patients for whom this therapy was indicated, either primarily or after intravenous thrombolysis (drip and shift). Results-The ERT protocol was activated for 199 patients, 129 of whom underwent ERT (64.8%). A total of 120 (60.3%) patients required a hospital transfer, 50 of whom (41%) ultimately did not undergo ERT. There were no differences in their baseline characteristics, the times from stroke onset, or in the delays in interhospital transfers between the transferred patients who were treated and those who were not treated. The main reasons for rejecting ERT after the interhospital transfer were clinical improvement/arterial recanalization (48%) and neuroimaging criteria (32%). Conclusions-Forty-one percent of the ERT transfers were futile, but none of the baseline patient characteristics predicted this result. Futility could be reduced if repetition of unnecessary diagnostic tests was avoided.