Background: As of 8 April 2021, a total of 2.9 million people have died with or from the coronavirus infection causing COVID-19 (Corona Virus Disease 2019). On 29 January 2021, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved a COVID-19 vaccine developed by Oxford University and AstraZeneca (AZD1222, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, COVID-19 vaccine AstraZeneca, Vaxzevria, Covishield). While the vaccine prevents severe course of and death from COVID-19, the observation of pulmonary, abdominal, and intracranial venous thromboembolic events has raised concerns. Objective: To describe the clinical manifestations and the concerning management of patients with cranial venous sinus thrombosis following first exposure to the “COVID-19 vaccine AstraZeneca”. Methods: Patient files, laboratory findings, and diagnostic imaging results, and endovascular interventions of three concerning patients were evaluated in retrospect. Results: Three women with intracranial venous sinus thrombosis after their first vaccination with “COVID-19 vaccine AstraZeneca” were encountered. Patient #1 was 22 years old and developed headaches four days after the vaccination. On day 7, she experienced a generalized epileptic seizure. Patient #2 was 46 years old. She presented with severe headaches, hemianopia to the right, and mild aphasia 13 days after the vaccination. MRI showed a left occipital intracerebral hemorrhage. Patient #3 was 36 years old and presented 17 days after the vaccination with acute somnolence and right-hand hemiparesis. The three patients were diagnosed with extensive venous sinus thrombosis. They were managed by heparinization and endovascular recanalization of their venous sinuses. They shared similar findings: elevated levels of D-dimers, platelet factor 4 antiplatelet antibodies, corona spike protein antibodies, combined with thrombocytopenia. Under treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin, platelet counts normalized within several days. Conclusion: Early observations insinuate that the exposure to the “COVID-19 vaccine AstraZeneca” might trigger the expression of antiplatelet antibodies, resulting in a condition with thrombocytopenia and venous thrombotic events (e.g., intracranial venous sinus thrombosis). These patients’ treatment should address the thrombo-embolic manifestations, the coagulation disorder, and the underlying immunological phenomena.

BackgroundThe use of flow diversion to treat intracranial aneurysms has increased in recent years.ObjectiveTo assess the safety and angiographic efficacy of the p64 flow modulation device.MethodsDiversion-p64 is an international, prospective, multicenter, single-arm, study conducted at 26 centers. The p64 flow modulation device was used to treat anterior circulation aneurysms between December 2015 and January 2019. The primary safety endpoint was the incidence of major stroke or neurologic death at 3–6 months, with the primary efficacy endpoint being complete aneurysm occlusion (Raymond-Roy Occlusion Classification 1) on follow-up angiography.ResultsA total of 420 patients met the eligibility criteria and underwent treatment with the p64 flow modulation device (mean age 55±12.0 years, 86.2% female). Mean aneurysm dome width was 6.99±5.28 mm and neck width 4.47±2.28 mm. Mean number of devices implanted per patient was 1.06±0.47, with adjunctive coiling performed in 14.0% of the cases. At the second angiographic follow-up (mean 375±73 days), available for 343 patients (81.7%), complete aneurysm occlusion was seen in 287 (83.7%) patients. Safety data were available for 413 patients (98.3%) at the first follow-up (mean 145±43 days) with a composite morbidity/mortality rate of 2.42% (n=10).ConclusionsDiversion-p64 is the largest prospective study using the p64 flow modulation device. The results of this study demonstrate that the device has a high efficacy and carries a low rate of mortality and permanent morbidity.

Although mechanical thrombectomy (MT) has been shown in numerous trials to be a successful treatment option for patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO), there is limited information on the safety and effectiveness of the technique in cases of recurrent LVO. To this end, we performed a retrospective review of our prospectively maintained database to identify all patients that had undergone more than one MT procedure January 2008 and January 2018. The data collected on these patients included baseline demographics and any history of diabetes mellitus, hypercholesterolaemia, hypertension, atrial fibrillation or smoking. We also recorded when the symptoms had started, the patient's NIHSS and ASPECT scores, the number of passes taken, the patient's final TICI score, any complications which arose and the patient's mRS at 90 days. Our dataset encompassed 25 patients (of which 17 (68%) were female) who had undergone a total number of 52 MT's. Average age at 1st presentation was 70 ± 12.8 years. The median time between one stroke and the next was 71 days (range 1-1059, IQR 183 days). The majority of the strokes were deemed cardioembolic (86.5%) in origin. There was no significant difference in the procedure times, number of passes or TICI scores. There was a significant difference in the mRS after the 1st and 2nd events (p = 0.014) but no significant difference if the 2nd event occurred contralateral to the 1st event (p = 0.66) (n = 22). It is therefore concluded that recurrent thrombectomy can be safely performed with no significant difference in the technical aspects of the procedure.