Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
Filter
1.
Cerebrovasc Dis ; : 1-4, 2022 Sep 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2322021

ABSTRACT

The third INTEnsive care bundle with blood pressure Reduction in Acute Cerebral hemorrhage Trial (INTERACT3) is an international, multicenter, stepped-wedge (4 phases/3 steps) cluster randomized trial involving 110 hospitals in mainly low- and middle-income countries during 2017-2022. The aim is to determine the effectiveness of a goal-directed care bundle of intensive blood pressure (BP) lowering, glycemic control, antipyrexia, and anticoagulation reversal treatment versus usual standard of care, in patients with acute intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). After a "usual care" period, hospitals were randomly allocated to implementing care-bundle protocols for control targets (systolic BP <140 mm Hg; glucose 6.1-7.8/7.8-10.0 mmol/L according to diabetes mellitus status; temperature ≤37.5°C; normalization of anticoagulation). A sample size of 8,360 patients (mean 19 per phase per site) provides 90% power (α = 0.05) for a 5.6% absolute improvement in the primary outcome of scores on the modified Rankin scale at 6 months, analyzed by ordinal logistic regression. A detailed statistical analysis plan (SAP) was developed to prespecify the method of analysis for all outcomes and key variables collected in the trial. The primary analysis will use ordinal logistic regression adjusted for the stepped-wedge design. The SAP also includes planned sensitivity analyses, including covariate adjustments, missing data imputations, and subgroup analysis. This SAP allows transparent, verifiable, and prespecified analyses in consideration of the challenges in conducting the study during the COVID pandemic. It also avoids analysis bias arising from prior knowledge of the findings in determining the benefits and harms of a care bundle in acute ICH.

2.
Front Psychol ; 13: 1019976, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2199196

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The present study investigated the role of dispositional hope as a potential protective factor moderator in the relationship between adult ADHD symptoms, media use/smart phone addiction and wellbeing during the period of isolation because of the COVID-19 pandemic among students in Romania. Methods: A sample of 333 college students (86.8% female and 13.2% male) between the age of 18 and 47 with a mean of 20.6 years old from West University of Timisoara completed online surveys. Mediation and moderation analyses were performed to assess the associations among the variables. Results: Results confirmed the negative associations of both adult ADHD and smartphone addiction with overall wellbeing. The smartphone addiction/ wellbeing association was moderated by dispositional hopefulness, such that high hopefulness served as a protective factor [b = -0.008, 95% percentile CI (-0.0134; -0.0012)]. Discussion: Implications for the educational environment are discussed.

3.
J Stroke ; 24(1): 79-87, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1675155

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Changes to hospital systems were implemented from March 2020 in Australia in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, including decreased resources allocated to stroke units. We investigate changes in the quality of acute care for patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack during the pandemic according to patients' treatment setting (stroke unit or alternate ward). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted with stroke or transient ischemic attack between January 2019 and June 2020 in the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry (AuSCR). The AuSCR monitors patients' treatment setting, provision of allied health and nursing interventions, prescription of secondary prevention medications, and discharge destination. Weekly trends in the quality of care before and during the pandemic period were assessed using interrupted time series analyses. RESULTS: In total, 18,662 patients in 2019 and 8,850 patients in 2020 were included. Overall, 75% were treated in stroke units. Before the pandemic, treatment in a stroke unit was superior to alternate wards for the provision of all evidence-based therapies assessed. During the pandemic period, the proportion of patients receiving a swallow screen or assessment, being discharged to rehabilitation, and being prescribed secondary prevention medications decreased by 0.58% to 1.08% per week in patients treated in other ward settings relative to patients treated in stroke units. This change represented a 9% to 17% increase in the care gap between these treatment settings during the period of the pandemic that was evaluated (16 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: During the first 6 months of the pandemic, widening care disparities between stroke units and alternate wards have occurred.

4.
Cerebrovasc Dis ; 50(3): 245-261, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1147303

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has placed a tremendous strain on healthcare services. This study, prepared by a large international panel of stroke experts, assesses the rapidly growing research and personal experience with COVID-19 stroke and offers recommendations for stroke management in this challenging new setting: modifications needed for prehospital emergency rescue and hyperacute care; inpatient intensive or stroke units; posthospitalization rehabilitation; follow-up including at-risk family and community; and multispecialty departmental developments in the allied professions. SUMMARY: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 uses spike proteins binding to tissue angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-2 receptors, most often through the respiratory system by virus inhalation and thence to other susceptible organ systems, leading to COVID-19. Clinicians facing the many etiologies for stroke have been sobered by the unusual incidence of combined etiologies and presentations, prominent among them are vasculitis, cardiomyopathy, hypercoagulable state, and endothelial dysfunction. International standards of acute stroke management remain in force, but COVID-19 adds the burdens of personal protections for the patient, rescue, and hospital staff and for some even into the postdischarge phase. For pending COVID-19 determination and also for those shown to be COVID-19 affected, strict infection control is needed at all times to reduce spread of infection and to protect healthcare staff, using the wealth of well-described methods. For COVID-19 patients with stroke, thrombolysis and thrombectomy should be continued, and the usual early management of hypertension applies, save that recent work suggests continuing ACE inhibitors and ARBs. Prothrombotic states, some acute and severe, encourage prophylactic LMWH unless bleeding risk is high. COVID-19-related cardiomyopathy adds risk of cardioembolic stroke, where heparin or warfarin may be preferable, with experience accumulating with DOACs. As ever, arteritis can prove a difficult diagnosis, especially if not obvious on the acute angiogram done for clot extraction. This field is under rapid development and may generate management recommendations which are as yet unsettled, even undiscovered. Beyond the acute management phase, COVID-19-related stroke also forces rehabilitation services to use protective precautions. As with all stroke patients, health workers should be aware of symptoms of depression, anxiety, insomnia, and/or distress developing in their patients and caregivers. Postdischarge outpatient care currently includes continued secondary prevention measures. Although hoping a COVID-19 stroke patient can be considered cured of the virus, those concerned for contact safety can take comfort in the increasing use of telemedicine, which is itself a growing source of patient-physician contacts. Many online resources are available to patients and physicians. Like prior challenges, stroke care teams will also overcome this one. Key Messages: Evidence-based stroke management should continue to be provided throughout the patient care journey, while strict infection control measures are enforced.


Subject(s)
Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/pharmacology , COVID-19/complications , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/pharmacology , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Stroke/etiology , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/metabolism , Stroke/diagnosis
5.
Front Neurol ; 12: 621495, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1133933

ABSTRACT

We present information on acute stroke care for the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia using data from the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry (AuSCR). The first case of COVID-19 in Australia was recorded in late January 2020 and national restrictions to control the virus commenced in March. To account for seasonal effects of stroke admissions, patient-level data from the registry from January to June 2020 were compared to the same period in 2019 (historical-control) from 61 public hospitals. We compared periods using descriptive statistics and performed interrupted time series analyses. Perceptions of stroke clinicians were obtained from 53/72 (74%) hospitals participating in the AuSCR (80% nurses) via a voluntary, electronic feedback survey. Survey data were summarized to provide contextual information for the registry-based analysis. Data from the registry covered locations that had 91% of Australian COVID-19 cases to the end of June 2020. For the historical-control period, 9,308 episodes of care were compared with the pandemic period (8,992 episodes). Patient characteristics were similar for each cohort (median age: 75 years; 56% male; ischemic stroke 69%). Treatment in stroke units decreased progressively during the pandemic period (control: 76% pandemic: 70%, p < 0.001). Clinical staff reported fewer resources available for stroke including 10% reporting reduced stroke unit beds. Several time-based metrics were unchanged whereas door-to-needle times were longer during the peak pandemic period (March-April, 2020; 82 min, control: 74 min, p = 0.012). Our data emphasize the need to maintain appropriate acute stroke care during times of national emergency such as pandemic management.

7.
Stroke Vasc Neurol ; 5(4): 323-330, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-852719

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic and physical distancing guidelines have compelled stroke practices worldwide to reshape their delivery of care significantly. We aimed to illustrate how the stroke services were interrupted during the pandemic in China. METHODS: A 61-item questionnaire designed on Wenjuanxing Form was completed by doctors or nurses who were involved in treating patients with stroke from 1 February to 31 March 2020. RESULTS: A total of 415 respondents completed the online survey after informed consent was obtained. Of the respondents, 37.8%, 35.2% and 27.0% were from mild, moderate and severe epidemic areas, respectively. Overall, the proportion of severe impact (reduction >50%) on the admission of transient ischaemic stroke, acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) and intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) was 45.0%, 32.0% and 27.5%, respectively. Those numbers were 36.9%, 27.9% and 22.3%; 36.5%, 22.1% and 22.6%; and 66.4%, 47.5% and 41.1% in mild, moderate and severe epidemic areas, respectively (all p<0.0001). For AIS, thrombolysis was moderate (20%-50% reduction) or severely impacted (>50%), as reported by 54.4% of the respondents, while thrombectomy was 39.3%. These were 44.4%, 26.3%; 44.2%, 39.4%; and 78.2%, 56.5%, in mild, moderate and severe epidemic areas, respectively (all p<0.0001). For patients with acute ICH, 39.8% reported the impact was severe or moderate for those eligible for surgery who had surgery. Those numbers were 27.4%, 39.0% and 58.1% in mild, moderate and severe epidemic areas, respectively. For staff resources, about 20% (overall) to 55% (severe epidemic) of the respondents reported moderate or severe impact on the on-duty doctors and nurses. CONCLUSION: We found a significant reduction of admission for all types of patients with stroke during the pandemic. Patients were less likely to receive appropriate care, for example, thrombolysis/thrombectomy, after being admitted to the hospital. Stroke service in severe COVID-19 epidemic areas, for example, Wuhan, was much more severely impacted compared with other regions in China.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Services/statistics & numerical data , Stroke/epidemiology , Stroke/therapy , Cerebral Hemorrhage/epidemiology , China/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Ischemic Attack, Transient/epidemiology , Ischemic Stroke/epidemiology , Neurosurgery/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , Patient Admission/statistics & numerical data , Patient Care Management , Stroke/surgery , Surveys and Questionnaires , Thrombolytic Therapy/statistics & numerical data
10.
Prog Cardiovasc Dis ; 63(4): 518-524, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-165006

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Evidence about COVID-19 on cardiac injury is inconsistent. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to summarize available data on severity differences in acute cardiac injury and acute cardiac injury with mortality during the COVID-19 outbreak. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search across Pubmed, Embase and pre-print from December 1, 2019 to March 27, 2020, to identify all observational studies that reported cardiac specific biomarkers (troponin, creatine kinase-MB fraction, myoglobin, or NT-proBNP) during COVID-19 infection. We extracted data on patient demographics, infection severity, comorbidity history, and biomarkers during COVID-19 infection. Where possible, data were pooled for meta-analysis with standard (SMD) or weighted (WMD) mean difference and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: We included 4189 confirmed COVID-19 infected patients from 28 studies. More severe COVID-19 infection is associated with higher mean troponin (SMD 0.53, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.75, p < 0.001), with a similar trend for creatine kinase-MB, myoglobin, and NT-proBNP. Acute cardiac injury was more frequent in those with severe, compared to milder, disease (risk ratio 5.99, 3.04 to 11.80; p < 0.001). Meta regression suggested that cardiac injury biomarker differences of severity are related to history of hypertension (p = 0.030). Also COVID19-related cardiac injury is associated with higher mortality (summary risk ratio 3.85, 2.13 to 6.96; p < 0.001). hsTnI and NT-proBNP levels increased during the course of hospitalization only in non-survivors. CONCLUSION: The severity of COVID-19 is associated with acute cardiac injury, and acute cardiac injury is associated with death. Cardiac injury biomarkers mainly increase in non-survivors. This highlights the need to effectively monitor heart health to prevent myocarditis in patients infected with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Heart Diseases/epidemiology , Heart Diseases/virology , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , COVID-19 , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL