Background The coronavirus disease 2019 is associated with neurological manifestations including stroke. Objectives We present a case series of coronavirus disease 2019 patients from two institutions with acute cerebrovascular pathologies. In addition, we present a pooled analysis of published data on large vessel occlusion in the setting of coronavirus disease 2019 and a concise summary of the pathophysiology of acute cerebrovascular disease in the setting of coronavirus disease 2019. Methods A retrospective study across two institutions was conducted between 20 March 2020 and 20 May 2020, for patients developing acute cerebrovascular disease and diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019. We performed a literature review using the PubMed search engine. Results The total sample size was 22 patients. The mean age was 59.5 years, and 12 patients were female. The cerebrovascular pathologies were 17 cases of acute ischemic stroke, 3 cases of aneurysm rupture, and 2 cases of sinus thrombosis. Of the stroke and sinus thrombosis patients, the mean National Institute of Health Stroke Scale was 13.8 ± 8.0, and 16 (84.2%) patients underwent a mechanical thrombectomy procedure. A favorable thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score was achieved in all patients. Of the 16 patients that underwent a mechanical thrombectomy, the mortality incidence was five (31.3%). Of all patients (22), three (13.6%) patients developed hemorrhagic conversion requiring decompressive surgery. Eleven (50%) patients had a poor functional status (modified Rankin Score 3–6) at discharge, and the total mortality incidence was eight (36.4%). Conclusions Despite timely intervention and favorable reperfusion, the mortality rate in coronavirus disease 2019 patients with large vessel occlusion was high in our series and in the pooled analysis. Notable features were younger age group, involvement of both the arterial and venous vasculature, multivessel involvement, and complicated procedures due to the clot consistency and burden.

No abstract

Care for acute ischaemic stroke is one of the most rapidly evolving fields due to the robust outcomes achieved by mechanical thrombectomy. Large vessel occlusion (LVO) accounts for up to 38% of acute ischaemic stroke and comes with devastating outcomes for patients, families and society in the pre-intervention era. A paradigm shift and a breakthrough brought mechanical thrombectomy back into the spotlight for acute ischaemic stroke; this was because five randomised controlled trials from several countries concluded that mechanical thrombectomy for acute stroke offered overwhelming benefits. This review article will present a comprehensive overview of LVO management, techniques and devices used, and the future of stroke therapy. In addition, we review our institution experience of mechanical thrombectomy for posterior and distal circulation occlusion.on July 13, 2020 by guest. Protected by copyright.

BACKGROUND The radial approach has been gaining more widespread use by neurointerventionalists fueled by data from the cardiology literature showing better safety and overall reduced morbidity. OBJECTIVE To present our institution's experience with the radial approach for neuroendovascular interventions in 614 consecutive patients who underwent a cumulative of 760 procedures. METHODS A retrospective analysis was performed and identified neuroendovascular procedures performed via the upper extremity vasculature access site. RESULTS Amongst 760 procedures, 34.2% (260) were therapeutic, and 65.7% (500) were nontherapeutic angiograms. Access sites were 71.5% (544) via a conventional radial artery, 27.8% (211) via a distal radial artery, 0.5% (4) via an ulnar artery, and 0.1% (1) via the brachial artery. Most of the procedures (96.9%) were performed via the right-sided (737), 2.9% (22) via the left-sided, and 0.1% (1) via a bilateral approach. Major access site complications occurred at a rate of 0.9% (7). The rate of transfemoral conversion was 4.7% (36). There was a statistically higher incidence of transfemoral conversion when repeat procedures were performed using the same access site. Also, there was no significant difference between nontherapeutic procedures performed using the right and left radial access, and conventional versus distal radial access. Procedural metrics improved after completion of 14 procedures, indicating a learning curve that should be surpassed by operators to reach optimal outcomes. CONCLUSION Radial artery catheterization is a safe and effective means of carrying out a wide range of neuroendovascular procedures associated with excellent clinical outcomes and an overall low rate of periprocedural complications.

No abstract