Background and Purpose-There is considerable heterogeneity in practice patterns between sedation in the intubated state vs nonintubated state during endovascular acute stroke therapy. We sought to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes between these 2 sedation modalities. Methods-Consecutive patients with acute stroke due to middle cerebral artery-M1 segment occlusion treated with endovascular therapy between January 2006 and July 2009 were identified in our interventional acute stroke database.

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.

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.