Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been associated with a significant risk of thrombotic events in critically ill patients. Aim To summarize the findings of a multinational observational cohort of patients with SARS-CoV-2 and cerebrovascular disease. Methods Retrospective observational cohort of consecutive adults evaluated in the emergency department and/or admitted with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) across 31 hospitals in four countries (1 February 2020–16 June 2020). The primary outcome was the incidence rate of cerebrovascular events, inclusive of acute ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhages (ICH), and cortical vein and/or sinus thrombosis (CVST). Results Of the 14,483 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2, 172 were diagnosed with an acute cerebrovascular event (1.13% of cohort; 1130/100,000 patients, 95%CI 970–1320/100,000), 68/171 (40.5%) were female and 96/172 (55.8%) were between the ages 60 and 79 years. Of these, 156 had acute ischemic stroke (1.08%; 1080/100,000 95%CI 920–1260/100,000), 28 ICH (0.19%; 190/100,000 95%CI 130–280/100,000), and 3 with CVST (0.02%; 20/100,000, 95%CI 4–60/100,000). The in-hospital mortality rate for SARS-CoV-2-associated stroke was 38.1% and for ICH 58.3%. After adjusting for clustering by site and age, baseline stroke severity, and all predictors of in-hospital mortality found in univariate regression (p < 0.1: male sex, tobacco use, arrival by emergency medical services, lower platelet and lymphocyte counts, and intracranial occlusion), cryptogenic stroke mechanism (aOR 5.01, 95%CI 1.63–15.44, p < 0.01), older age (aOR 1.78, 95%CI 1.07–2.94, p = 0.03), and lower lymphocyte count on admission (aOR 0.58, 95%CI 0.34–0.98, p = 0.04) were the only independent predictors of mortality among patients with stroke and COVID-19. Conclusions COVID-19 is associated with a small but significant risk of clinically relevant cerebrovascular events, particularly ischemic stroke. The mortality rate is high for COVID-19-associated cerebrovascular complications; therefore, aggressive monitoring and early intervention should be pursued to mitigate poor outcomes.

Background and Purpose: The pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to an unprecedented paradigm shift in medical care. We sought to evaluate whether the COVID-19 pandemic may have contributed to delays in acute stroke management at comprehensive stroke centers. Methods: Pooled clinical data of consecutive adult stroke patients from 14 US comprehensive stroke centers (January 1, 2019, to July 31, 2020) were queried. The rate of thrombolysis for nontransferred patients within the Target: Stroke goal of 60 minutes was compared between patients admitted from March 1, 2019, and July 31, 2019 (pre–COVID-19), and March 1, 2020, to July 31, 2020 (COVID-19). The time from arrival to imaging and treatment with thrombolysis or thrombectomy, as continuous variables, were also assessed. Results: Of the 2955 patients who met inclusion criteria, 1491 were admitted during the pre–COVID-19 period and 1464 were admitted during COVID-19, 15% of whom underwent intravenous thrombolysis. Patients treated during COVID-19 were at lower odds of receiving thrombolysis within 60 minutes of arrival (odds ratio, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.38–0.98]; P =0.04), with a median delay in door-to-needle time of 4 minutes ( P =0.03). The lower odds of achieving treatment in the Target: Stroke goal persisted after adjustment for all variables associated with earlier treatment (adjusted odds ratio, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.35–0.85]; P <0.01). The delay in thrombolysis appeared driven by the longer delay from imaging to bolus (median, 29 [interquartile range, 18–41] versus 22 [interquartile range, 13–37] minutes; P =0.02). There was no significant delay in door-to-groin puncture for patients who underwent thrombectomy (median, 83 [interquartile range, 63–133] versus 90 [interquartile range, 73–129] minutes; P =0.30). Delays in thrombolysis were observed in the months of June and July. Conclusions: Evaluation for acute ischemic stroke during the COVID-19 period was associated with a small but significant delay in intravenous thrombolysis but no significant delay in thrombectomy time metrics. Taking steps to reduce delays from imaging to bolus time has the potential to attenuate this collateral effect of the pandemic.

Background and purpose Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with a small but clinically significant risk of stroke, the cause of which is frequently cryptogenic. In a large multinational cohort of consecutive COVID-19 patients with stroke, we evaluated clinical predictors of cryptogenic stroke, short-term functional outcomes and in-hospital mortality among patients according to stroke etiology. Methods We explored clinical characteristics and short-term outcomes of consecutively evaluated patients 18 years of age or older with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from 31 hospitals in 4 countries (3/1/20–6/16/20). Results Of the 14.483 laboratory-confirmed patients with COVID-19, 156 (1.1%) were diagnosed with AIS. Sixty-one (39.4%) were female, 84 (67.2%) white, and 88 (61.5%) were between 60 and 79 years of age. The most frequently reported etiology of AIS was cryptogenic (55/129, 42.6%), which was associated with significantly higher white blood cell count, c-reactive protein, and D-dimer levels than non-cryptogenic AIS patients (p</=0.05 for all comparisons). In a multivariable backward stepwise regression model estimating the odds of in-hospital mortality, cryptogenic stroke mechanism was associated with a fivefold greater odds in-hospital mortality than strokes due to any other mechanism (adjusted OR 5.16, 95%CI 1.41–18.87, p = 0.01). In that model, older age (aOR 2.05 per decade, 95%CI 1.35–3.11, p < 0.01) and higher baseline NIHSS (aOR 1.12, 95%CI 1.02–1.21, p = 0.01) were also independently predictive of mortality. Conclusions Our findings suggest that cryptogenic stroke among COVID-19 patients carries a significant risk of early mortality.

ImportanceIn patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding supra-annular valve was noninferior to surgery for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Comparisons of longer-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in these patients are limited.ObjectiveTo report prespecified secondary 5-year outcomes from the Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement (SURTAVI) randomized clinical trial.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsSURTAVI is a prospective randomized, unblinded clinical trial. Randomization was stratified by investigational site and need for revascularization determined by the local heart teams. Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis deemed to be at intermediate risk of 30-day surgical mortality were enrolled at 87 centers from June 19, 2012, to June 30, 2016, in Europe and North America. Analysis took place between August and October 2021.InterventionPatients were randomized to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular transcatheter or a surgical bioprosthesis.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe prespecified secondary end points of death or disabling stroke and other adverse events and hemodynamic findings at 5 years. An independent clinical event committee adjudicated all serious adverse events and an independent echocardiographic core laboratory evaluated all echocardiograms at 5 years.ResultsA total of 1660 individuals underwent an attempted TAVR (n = 864) or surgical (n = 796) procedure. The mean (SD) age was 79.8 (6.2) years, 724 (43.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgery Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 4.5% (1.6%). At 5 years, the rates of death or disabling stroke were similar (TAVR, 31.3% vs surgery, 30.8%; hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.85-1.22]; P = .85). Transprosthetic gradients remained lower (mean [SD], 8.6 [5.5] mm Hg vs 11.2 [6.0] mm Hg; P &amp;lt; .001) and aortic valve areas were higher (mean [SD], 2.2 [0.7] cm2 vs 1.8 [0.6] cm2; P &amp;lt; .001) with TAVR vs surgery. More patients had moderate/severe paravalvular leak with TAVR than surgery (11 [3.0%] vs 2 [0.7%]; risk difference, 2.37% [95% CI, 0.17%- 4.85%]; P = .05). New pacemaker implantation rates were higher for TAVR than surgery at 5 years (289 [39.1%] vs 94 [15.1%]; hazard ratio, 3.30 [95% CI, 2.61-4.17]; log-rank P &amp;lt; .001), as were valve reintervention rates (27 [3.5%] vs 11 [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 2.21 [95% CI, 1.10-4.45]; log-rank P = .02), although between 2 and 5 years only 6 patients who underwent TAVR and 7 who underwent surgery required a reintervention.Conclusions and RelevanceAmong intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, major clinical outcomes at 5 years were similar for TAVR and surgery. TAVR was associated with superior hemodynamic valve performance but also with more paravalvular leak and valve reinterventions.