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.

ObjectiveCurrent prehospital scales used to detect large vessel occlusion reveal very low endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) rates among selected patients. We developed a novel prehospital scale, the Madrid-Direct Referral to Endovascular Center (M-DIRECT), to identify EVT candidates for direct transfer to EVT-capable centers (EVT-Cs). The scale evaluated clinical examination, systolic blood pressure, and age. Since March 2017, patients closer to a stroke unit without EVT capabilities and an M-DIRECT positive score have been transferred to the nearest EVT-C. To test the performance of the scale-based routing protocol, we compared its outcomes with those of a simultaneous cohort of patients directly transferred to an EVT-C.MethodsIn this prospective observational study of consecutive patients with stroke code seen by emergency medical services, we compared diagnoses, treatments, and outcomes of patients who were closer to an EVT-C (mothership cohort) with those transferred according to the M-DIRECT score (M-DIRECT cohort).ResultsThe M-DIRECT cohort included 327 patients and the mothership cohort 214 patients. In the M-DIRECT cohort, 227 patients were negative and 100 were positive. Twenty-four (10.6%) patients required secondary transfer, leaving 124 (38%) patients from the M-DIRECT cohort admitted to an EVT-C. EVT rates were similar for patients with ischemic stroke in both cohorts (30.9% vs 31.5%). The M-DIRECT scale had 79% sensitivity, 82% specificity, and 53% positive predictive value for EVT. Recanalization and independence rates at 3 months did not differ between the cohorts.ConclusionsThe M-DIRECT scale was highly accurate for EVT, with treatment rates and outcomes similar to those of a mothership paradigm, thereby avoiding EVT-C overload with a low rate of secondary transfers.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract