Background and Purpose: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been associated with an increased incidence of thrombotic events, including stroke. However, characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients with stroke are not well known. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study of risk factors, stroke characteristics, and short-term outcomes in a large health system in New York City. We included consecutively admitted patients with acute cerebrovascular events from March 1, 2020 through April 30, 2020. Data were stratified by COVID-19 status, and demographic variables, medical comorbidities, stroke characteristics, imaging results, and in-hospital outcomes were examined. Among COVID-19-positive patients, we also summarized laboratory test results. Results: Of 277 patients with stroke, 105 (38.0%) were COVID-19-positive. Compared with COVID-19-negative patients, COVID-19-positive patients were more likely to have a cryptogenic (51.8% versus 22.3%, P <0.0001) stroke cause and were more likely to suffer ischemic stroke in the temporal ( P =0.02), parietal ( P =0.002), occipital ( P =0.002), and cerebellar ( P =0.028) regions. In COVID-19-positive patients, mean coagulation markers were slightly elevated (prothrombin time 15.4±3.6 seconds, partial thromboplastin time 38.6±24.5 seconds, and international normalized ratio 1.4±1.3). Outcomes were worse among COVID-19-positive patients, including longer length of stay ( P <0.0001), greater percentage requiring intensive care unit care ( P =0.017), and greater rate of neurological worsening during admission ( P <0.0001); additionally, more COVID-19-positive patients suffered in-hospital death (33% versus 12.9%, P <0.0001). Conclusions: Baseline characteristics in patients with stroke were similar comparing those with and without COVID-19. However, COVID-19-positive patients were more likely to experience stroke in a lobar location, more commonly had a cryptogenic cause, and had worse outcomes.

ProblemDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, medical schools have offered a virtual application process. Minimal literature is available to guide best practices.

Background and Purpose: Risk of 30-day stroke readmission has been attributed to medical comorbidities, stroke severity, and hospitalization metrics. The leading etiologies appear to vary across institutions and remain a moving target. We hypothesized that patients with increased medical complexity have higher odds of 30-day readmission and the immediate time after discharge may be most vulnerable. We aimed to characterize patients with 30-day readmission after acute ischemic stroke (IS) and identify predictors of post-IS readmission. Methods: We performed a retrospective case-control study analyzing post-IS 30-day readmission between January 2016-December 2019 using data from Mount Sinai Hospital’s Get With The Guidelines database. We performed chi square analyses and multivariate adjusted logistic regression model including age, sex, coronary artery disease (CAD), renal insufficiency (RI), history of prior stroke or TIA, length of stay (LOS) > 7, and NIHSS ≥ 5. Results: 6.7% (n = 115) of 1,706 IS encounters had 30-day readmission. The 115 cases were compared to 1,591 controls without 30-day readmission. In our adjusted model, CAD (OR = 1.7, p = 0.01), history of prior stroke or TIA (OR = 1.6, p = 0.01), LOS >7 (OR = 1.7, p = 0.02), and NIHSS ≥ 5 (OR = 4.5, p < 0.001) predicted 30-day readmission. 65% (n = 75) of readmitted patients had readmission within 14 days post-discharge. Conclusions: Patients with post-IS 30-day readmission were more likely to have complex medical comorbidities and history of stroke or TIA compared to controls. Patients with more severe stroke and longer LOS may benefit from individualized transition of care plans and closer follow up during the vulnerable 30-day post-stroke period.

Background: We sought to characterize perceptions of inappropriate neurology consults of neurology residents (NR) and requesting providers (RP) immediately following the consult interaction. Methods: Student investigators were embedded in the Mount Sinai neurology consult service for 4 weeks in May/June 2018. For each consecutive neurology consult the NR’s real-time attitudes toward the consult were evaluated with a survey using Likert scales. A similar survey was immediately administered to the RP who called the consult. Response scores for each attribute were dichotomized and data were analyzed descriptively in SPSS. Results: Data from 69 consults were collected. NRs perceived 45% of consults as inappropriate and 82% of all consults as low urgency. When NRs perceived a consult as inappropriate, they felt more resistance (r=−0.79). NRs also felt more resistant when they thought that the RP could have cared for the patient without the consult (r=0.79). NRs felt that perceived medicolegal risk highly influenced the RP’s decision to call a consult in 36% of cases. Of these “high liability” consults, NRs considered 76% inappropriate and 100% low urgency. Conclusions: NRs were more likely to rate consults as inappropriate if they were also perceived as low urgency, strongly influenced by liability concerns, or unnecessary due to belief that the RP could have cared for the patient without the consult. Our findings suggest a discrepancy in how NRs and RPs perceive neurology consult appropriateness, and help to elucidate potential drivers of these perceptions that could be barriers to education and to interdisciplinary care.

Introduction: Studies have demonstrated that aphasia may negatively impact morbidity and mortality among ischemic stroke (IS) patients. However, the association between post-stroke aphasia and readmission with infection (RI) is poorly understood. We sought to assess the impact of aphasia on post-stroke RI. We hypothesized that aphasic patients are at increased risk of infection in the 30-day post-stroke period. Methods: We performed retrospective chart review of the Mount Sinai Hospital IS patients with 30-day all cause readmission from January 2016 - December 2019. All variables were abstracted from the index admission (IA) electronic medical records except for aspects related to the readmission (RA). Aphasia was present if a neurologist diagnosed the patient with acquired language dysfunction during IA. We performed chi square and logistic regression analyses to compare readmitted patients with and without aphasia at IA. Our fully adjusted model controlled for age, sex, medical comorbidities, NIHSS ≥ 8, IA LOS > 7, IA infection, discharge to facility. We completed all analyses with SPSS. Results: During IA, 36% (n=42) were diagnosed with aphasia. At IA, there were no significant differences in age (dichotomized at 65), sex, or medical comorbidities between aphasic and non-aphasic cohorts. However, more aphasic patients had admission NIHSS ≥ 8 (89% vs 35%, p<0.0001), LOS > 7 (76% vs 42%, p=0.0004), discharge to facility (79% vs 49%, p=0.0016), and RI (52% vs 19%, p=0.002). The presence of aphasia predicted RI in both unadjusted (OR=4.6, p<0.001) and adjusted (OR= 3.3, p=0.014) multivariate analyses. The Kappa inter-reliability ranged from 0.7-1.0 for the key variables included in our adjusted model. Conclusions: The adjusted odds of 30-day readmission with infection were significantly greater in those with diagnosis of aphasia at the time of index admission compared to those without. Our study provides preliminary evidence that the presence of aphasia may have negative consequences on a patient’s health beyond the language disturbance. Further study is needed to better understand the reasons and risk reduction strategies in this vulnerable population.