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.

Objective:The objectives of this study were to measure the global impact of the pandemic on the volumes for intravenous thrombolysis (IVT), IVT transfers, and stroke hospitalizations over 4 months at the height of the pandemic (March 1 to June 30, 2020) compared with two control 4-month periods.Methods:We conducted a cross-sectional, observational, retrospective study across 6 continents, 70 countries, and 457 stroke centers. Diagnoses were identified by their ICD-10 codes and/or classifications in stroke databases.Results:There were 91,373 stroke admissions in the 4 months immediately before compared to 80,894 admissions during the pandemic months, representing an 11.5% (95%CI, -11.7 to - 11.3, p<0.0001) decline. There were 13,334 IVT therapies in the 4 months preceding compared to 11,570 procedures during the pandemic, representing a 13.2% (95%CI, -13.8 to -12.7, p<0.0001) drop. Interfacility IVT transfers decreased from 1,337 to 1,178, or an 11.9% decrease (95%CI, -13.7 to -10.3, p=0.001). Recovery of stroke hospitalization volume (9.5%, 95%CI 9.2-9.8, p<0.0001) was noted over the two later (May, June) versus the two earlier (March, April) pandemic months. There was a 1.48% stroke rate across 119,967 COVID-19 hospitalizations. SARS-CoV-2 infection was noted in 3.3% (1,722/52,026) of all stroke admissions.Conclusions:The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a global decline in the volume of stroke hospitalizations, IVT, and interfacility IVT transfers. Primary stroke centers and centers with higher COVID19 inpatient volumes experienced steeper declines. Recovery of stroke hospitalization was noted in the later pandemic months.

BackgroundThe optimal timing to administer non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in patients with acute ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation is unclear. This prospective observational multicenter study evaluated the rates of early recurrence and major bleeding (within 90 days) and their timing in patients with acute ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation who received NOACs for secondary prevention.Methods and ResultsRecurrence was defined as the composite of ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, and symptomatic systemic embolism, and major bleeding was defined as symptomatic cerebral and major extracranial bleeding. For the analysis, 1127 patients were eligible: 381 (33.8%) were treated with dabigatran, 366 (32.5%) with rivaroxaban, and 380 (33.7%) with apixaban. Patients who received dabigatran were younger and had lower admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score and less commonly had a CHA 2 DS 2‐VASc score >4 and less reduced renal function. Thirty‐two patients (2.8%) had early recurrence, and 27 (2.4%) had major bleeding. The rates of early recurrence and major bleeding were, respectively, 1.8% and 0.5% in patients receiving dabigatran, 1.6% and 2.5% in those receiving rivaroxaban, and 4.0% and 2.9% in those receiving apixaban. Patients who initiated NOACs within 2 days after acute stroke had a composite rate of recurrence and major bleeding of 12.4%; composite rates were 2.1% for those who initiated NOACs between 3 and 14 days and 9.1% for those who initiated >14 days after acute stroke.ConclusionsIn patients with acute ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation, treatment with NOACs was associated with a combined 5% rate of ischemic embolic recurrence and severe bleeding within 90 days.

No abstract

Transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) has been suggested to improve language function in patients with post-stroke aphasia. Most studies on aphasic patients, however, were conducted with a very limited follow-up period, if any. In this pilot, single-blind study on chronic post-stroke aphasic patients, we aimed to verify whether or not tDCS is able to extend its beneficial effects for a longer period of time (21 weeks after the end of stimulation). Three aphasic patients underwent anodal tDCS (A-tDCS, 20 min, 1.5 mA) and sham stimulation (S-tDCS) over the left frontal (perilesional) region, coupled with a simultaneous naming training (on-line tDCS). Ten consecutive sessions (5 days per week for 2 weeks) were implemented. In the first five sessions, we used a list of 40 figures, while in the subsequent five sessions we utilized a second set of 40 figures differing in word difficulty. At the end of the stimulation period, we found a significant beneficial effect of A-tDCS (as compared to baseline and S-tDCS) in all our subjects, regardless of word difficulty, although with some inter-individual differences. In the follow-up period, the percentage of correct responses persisted significantly better until the 16th week, when an initial decline in naming performance was observed. Up to the 21st week, the number of correct responses, though no longer significant, was still above the baseline level. These results in a small group of aphasic patients suggest a long-term beneficial effect of on-line A-tDCS.