No abstract

Background Efficiency of care chain response and hospital reactivity were and are challenged for stroke acute care management during the pandemic period of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in North-Eastern Italy (Veneto, Friuli-Venezia-Giulia, Trentino-Alto-Adige), counting 7,193,880 inhabitants (ISTAT), with consequences in acute treatment for patients with ischemic stroke. Methods We conducted a retrospective data collection of patients admitted to stroke units eventually treated with thrombolysis and thrombectomy, ranging from January to May 2020 from the beginning to the end of the main first pandemic period of COVID-19 in Italy. The primary endpoint was the number of patients arriving to these stroke units, and secondary endpoints were the number of thrombolysis and/or thrombectomy. Chi-square analysis was used on all patients; furthermore, patients were divided into two cohorts (pre-lockdown and lockdown periods) and the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test differences on admission and reperfusive therapies. Results In total, 2536 patients were included in 22 centers. There was a significant decrease of admissions in April compared to January. Furthermore, we observed a significant decrease of thrombectomy during the lockdown period, while thrombolysis rate was unaffected in the same interval across all centers. Conclusions Our study confirmed a decrease in admission rate of stroke patients in a large area of northern Italy during the lockdown period, especially during the first dramatic phase. Overall, there was no decrease in thrombolysis rate, confirming an effect of emergency care system for stroke patients. Instead, the significant decrease in thrombectomy rate during lockdown addresses some considerations of local and regional stroke networks during COVID-19 pandemic evolution.

Background and Purpose: Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is an accepted therapeutic option for stroke prevention; however, the ideal technique and device have not yet been identified. In this study we evaluate the potential role of a heart team approach for patients contraindicated for oral anticoagulants and indicated for left atrial appendage closure, to minimize risk and optimize benefit in a patient-centered decision-making process. Methods: Forty patients were evaluated by the heart team for appendage occlusion. Variables considered were CHA2DS2VASc, HASBLED, documented blood transfusions, comorbidities, event forcing anticoagulant interruption, past medical history, anatomy of the left atrial appendage, and patient quality of life. Twenty patients had their appendage occluded percutaneously (65% male, mean age 72.3 ± 7.5, mean CHA2DS2VASc 4.2 ± 1.5, mean HASBLED 3.5 ± 1.1). The other twenty underwent thoracoscopic occlusion (65% male, mean age of 74.9 ± 8, mean CHA2DS2VASc 6.0 ± 1.5, HASBLED mean 5.4 ± 1.4). Percutaneous patients were on dual antiplatelet therapy for the first three months and aspirin thereafter, whereas the others received no anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy from the day of surgery. Follow up included TEE, CT scan, and periodical clinical evaluation. Results: Mean duration of procedures and hospital stay were comparable. All patients had complete exclusion of the appendage; at a mean follow up of 33.1 ± 14.1 months, no neurological or hemorrhagic events were reported. Conclusions: A heart team approach may improve the decision-making process for stroke and hemorrhage prevention, where LAAO is a therapeutic option. Percutaneous and thoracoscopic appendage occlusion seem to be comparably safe and effective. An epicardial LAAO could be advisable in patients for whom the risk of bleeding is estimated as being too high for post-procedural antiplatelet therapy.