We set out to determine which characteristics and outcomes of stroke are associated with COVID-19. Methods This case-control study included patients admitted with stroke to 13 hospitals in England and Scotland between 9 th March and 5 th July 2020. We collected data on86strokes (81 ischaemic strokes and 5intracerebral haemorrhages)in patients withevidence of COVID-19 at the time of stroke onset (Cases). They were compared with 1384strokes(1193 ischaemic strokes and 191 intracerebral haemorrhages) in patients admitted during the same time periodwho never had evidence of COVID-19 (Controls). In addition the whole group of stroke admissions, including another 37 in patients who appear to have developed COVID-19 after their stroke, were included in two logistic regression analyses examining which features wereindependently associated with COVID-19 status and with inpatient mortality. Results Cases with ischaemic stroke were more likely than ischaemic controls to occur in Asians (18.8% vs 6.7%, p<0.0002), were more likely to involve multiple large vessel occlusions (17•9% vs 8.1%, p<0•03), were more severe (median NIHSS 8 vs 5, p<0•002), were associated with higher D-dimer levels (p<0•01) and were associated withmore severe disability on discharge (median mRS 4 vs 3, p<0•0001) and inpatientdeath (19.8% vs9•6%, p<0•0001). Recurrence of stroke during the patient's admission was rare in Cases and Controls (2.3% vs1.0%, NS). Conclusions Our data suggest that COVID-19 may be an important modifier of the onset, characteristics and outcome of acute ischaemic stroke.

Background In 2015, six indicators were proposed to evaluate global progress towards access to safe, affordable and timely surgical and anaesthesia care. Although some have been adopted as core global health indicators, none has been evaluated systematically. The aims of this study were to assess the availability, comparability and utility of the indicators, and to present available data and updated estimates. Methods Nationally representative data were compiled for all World Health Organization (WHO) member states from 2010 to 2016 through contacts with official bodies and review of the published and grey literature, and available databases. Availability, comparability and utility were assessed for each indicator: access to timely essential surgery, specialist surgical workforce density, surgical volume, perioperative mortality, and protection against impoverishing and catastrophic expenditure. Where feasible, imputation models were developed to generate global estimates. Results Of all WHO member states, 19 had data on the proportion of the population within 2h of a surgical facility, 154 had data on workforce density, 72 reported number of procedures, and nine had perioperative mortality data, but none could report data on catastrophic or impoverishing expenditure. Comparability and utility were variable, and largely dependent on different definitions used. There were sufficient data to estimate that worldwide, in 2015, there were 2 038 947 (i.q.r. 1 884 916–2 281 776) surgeons, obstetricians and anaesthetists, and 266·1 (95 per cent c.i. 220·1 to 344·4) million operations performed. Conclusion Surgical and anaesthesia indicators are increasingly being adopted by the global health community, but data availability remains low. Comparability and utility for all indicators require further resolution.

IntroductionThe Lancet Commission on Global Surgery proposed the perioperative mortality rate (POMR) as one of the six key indicators of the strength of a country’s surgical system. Despite its widespread use in high-income settings, few studies have described procedure-specific POMR across low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We aimed to estimate POMR across a wide range of surgical procedures in LMICs. We also describe how POMR is defined and reported in the LMIC literature to provide recommendations for future monitoring in resource-constrained settings.MethodsWe did a systematic review of studies from LMICs published from 2009 to 2014 reporting POMR for any surgical procedure. We extracted select variables in duplicate from each included study and pooled estimates of POMR by type of procedure using random-effects meta-analysis of proportions and the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation to stabilise variances.ResultsWe included 985 studies conducted across 83 LMICs, covering 191 types of surgical procedures performed on 1 020 869 patients. Pooled POMR ranged from less than 0.1% for appendectomy, cholecystectomy and caesarean delivery to 20%–27% for typhoid intestinal perforation, intracranial haemorrhage and operative head injury. We found no consistent associations between procedure-specific POMR and Human Development Index (HDI) or income-group apart from emergency peripartum hysterectomy POMR, which appeared higher in low-income countries. Inpatient mortality was the most commonly used definition, though only 46.2% of studies explicitly defined the time frame during which deaths accrued.ConclusionsEfforts to improve access to surgical care in LMICs should be accompanied by investment in improving the quality and safety of care. To improve the usefulness of POMR as a safety benchmark, standard reporting items should be included with any POMR estimate. Choosing a basket of procedures for which POMR is tracked may offer institutions and countries the standardisation required to meaningfully compare surgical outcomes across contexts and improve population health outcomes.