Search

Background: It is not clear whether the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent Society of Neurointerventional Surgery (SNIS) recommendations affected hospital stroke metrics., Methods: This retrospective cohort study compared stroke patients admitted to a comprehensive stroke center during the COVID-19 pandemic April 1 2020 to June 30 2020 (COVID-19) to patients admitted April 1 2019 to June 30 2019. We examined stroke admission volume and acute stroke treatment use., Results: There were 637 stroke admissions, 52% in 2019 and 48% during COVID-19, with similar median admissions per day (4 vs 3, P=0.21). The proportion of admissions by stroke type was comparable (ischemic, P=0.69; hemorrhagic, P=0.39; transient ischemic stroke, P=0.10). Acute stroke treatment was similar in 2019 to COVID-19: tPA prior to arrival (18% vs, 18%, P=0.89), tPA treatment on arrival (6% vs 7%, P=0.85), and endovascular therapy (endovascular therapy (ET), 22% vs 25%, P=0.54). The door to needle time was also similar, P=0.12, however, the median time from arrival to groin puncture was significantly longer during COVID-19 (38 vs 43 min, P=0.002). A significantly higher proportion of patients receiving ET were intubated during COVID-19 due to SNIS guideline implementation (45% vs 96%, P<0.0001). There were no differences by study period in discharge mRS, P=0.84 or TICI score, P=0.26., Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic did not significantly affect stroke admission volume or acute stroke treatment utilization. Outcomes were not affected by implementing SNIS guidelines. Although there was a statistical increase in time to groin puncture for ET, it was not clinically meaningful. These results suggest hospitals managing patients efficiently can implement practices in response to COVID-19 without impacting outcomes., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: The safety and efficacy of intra-arterial treatment (IAT) in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to cervical artery dissection (CeAD) has not been formally studied. The purpose of this study was twofold: first, describe a large series with CeAD treated with IAT; second, analyze outcomes with CeAD receiving IAT versus (a) CeAD not treated with IAT, (b) CeAD receiving intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) alone, and (c) non-CeAD mechanism of AIS receiving IAT., Design: Demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment, and outcomes were summarized for all CeAD patients treated with IAT from January 2010 to May 2015. Outcomes included favorable 90 day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-2, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), recanalization (Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction 2b-3), procedural complications, and mortality. Outcomes were analyzed with χ 2 tests and multivariate logistic regression., Results: There were 161 patients with CeAD: 24 were treated with IAT and comprised our target population. Dissections were more common in the internal carotid (n=18) than in the vertebral arteries (n=6). All but one patient had intracranial embolus. IAT techniques included thrombectomy (n=19), IA thrombolysis (n=17), stent (n=14), and angioplasty (n=7). Outcomes included favorable 90 day mRS score of 0-2 in 63%, 4 deaths, 1 sICH, and 3 procedural complications. After adjustment, favorable mRS in our target population was similar to comparison populations: (a) in CeAD, IAT versus no IAT (OR 0.62, p=0.56); (b) In CeAD, IAT versus IVT alone (OR 1.32, p=0.79); and (c) IAT in CeAD versus non-CeAD mechanism of AIS (OR 0.58, p=0.34)., Conclusions: IAT is a valid alternative therapeutic option for AIS caused by CeAD due to the low complication rate and excellent outcomes observed in this study., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Background: Clinical trials confirmed the safety and efficacy of intra-arterial therapy (IAT) in the management of ischemic stroke. At a community hospital, we compared outcomes in patients aged ≥80 and patients in the age range 55-79 years receiving IAT following ischemic stroke., Methods: Data were retrospectively abstracted for ischemic stroke patients ≥55 years treated with IAT at an urban comprehensive stroke center between 2010 and 2013. Baseline demographics, incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), in-hospital mortality, discharge modified Rankin scale (mRS) score (favorable ≤2) and improvement in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale Score (NIHSS; decreased score at discharge) were compared between patients in the age range 55-79 and patients ≥80 years. Data were analyzed using univariate analyses and multivariate logistic regression., Results: IAT was performed in 239 patients with ischemic stroke; 63 (26.4%) were ≥80 years. When compared to patients aged 55-79, the elderly patients were more often female and non-smokers, with a history of atrial fibrillation. No differences were observed in those ≥80 years compared to patients in the age range 55-79 years for sICH (10 vs. 5%, p = 0.23), mortality (24 vs. 18%, p = 0.28), favorable discharge mRS score (13 vs. 19%, p = 0.27), or improvement in NIHSS (83 vs. 92%, p = 0.10). The nonsignificant association of age with the outcomes persisted after adjusting for covariates and when analyzing the subset of patients who received IAT only., Conclusions: These findings suggest that in a cohort not subject to the criteria of a clinical trial, age ≥80 years should not be a contraindication to IAT., (© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background and Purpose: Patients with acute ischemic stroke require immediate medical treatment, and a CT to rule out hemorrhage is required before tPA. We adapted our protocol to include multimodal CT: unenhanced CT, CTA, and PCT. The purpose of this study was to determine whether multimodal CT imaging delays initiation of IV tPA beyond 60 minutes from hospital arrival., Materials and Methods: All patients admitted during 3 years through the ED with a stroke alert and time from symptom onset to hospital arrival <2.5 hours were included. We examined 2 subgroups (multimodal CT versus unenhanced CT) to determine whether multimodal CT delayed tPA administration. Logistic regression was used to identify variables that predicted tPA within 60 minutes., Results: There were 123 patients in the analysis, including 108 patients who were examined with multimodal CT. The median time from arrival to tPA was 56 minutes and was shorter for patients examined with multimodal CT (55 versus 78 minutes, P = .02). After adjustment, variables that were associated with tPA administration within 60 minutes included prehospital stroke alert (OR = 3.47, P = .03), time to CT (OR = 0.94, P = .01), and onset-to-arrival time (OR = 1.02, P = .04). There was no statistically significant difference in the odds of receiving timely tPA for multimodal versus unenhanced CT (OR = 3.99, P = .07)., Conclusions: In our single-center experience, the use of multimodal imaging in patients with acute stroke did not delay IV tPA beyond 60 minutes. Further study is needed to assess the feasibility of the routine use of multimodal imaging in the acute stroke setting.