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 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.
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 and purpose:The experience gained during the first COVID-19 wave could have mitigated the negative impact on stroke care in the following waves. Our aims were to analyze the characteristics and outcomes of patients with stroke admitted during the second COVID-19 wave and to evaluate the differences in the stroke care provision compared with the first wave. Methods: This retrospective multicenter cohort study included consecutive stroke patients admitted to any of the seven hospitals with stroke units (SUs) and endovascular treatment facilities in the Madrid Health Region. The characteristics of the stroke patients with or without a COVID-19 diagnosis were compared and the organizational changes in stroke care between the first wave (25 February to 25 April 2020) and second wave (21 July to 21 November 2020) were analyzed.Results: A total of 550 and 1191 stroke patients were admitted during the first and second COVID-19 waves, respectively, with an average daily admission rate of nine patients in both waves. During the second wave, there was a decrease in stroke severity (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale 5 vs. 6; p = 0.000), in-hospital strokes (3% vs. 8.1%) and in-hospital mortality (9.9% vs. 15.9%). Furthermore, fewer patients experienced concurrent , and they presented milder COVID-19 and less severe strokes. Fewer hospitals reported a reduction in the number of SU beds or deployment of SU personnel to COVID-19 dedicated wards during the second wave. Conclusions:During the second COVID-19 wave, fewer stroke patients were diagnosed with COVID-19, and they had less stroke severity and milder COVID-19.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.