Characteristics of a COVID-19 Cohort With Large Vessel Occlusion: A Multicenter International Study.

BACKGROUND: The mechanisms and outcomes in coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-associated stroke are unique from those of non-COVID-19 stroke. OBJECTIVE: To describe the efficacy and outcomes of acute revascularization of large vessel occlusion (LVO) in the setting of COVID-19 in an international cohort. METHODS: We conducted an international multicenter retrospective study of consecutively admitted patients with COVID-19 with concomitant acute LVO across 50 comprehensive stroke centers. Our control group constituted historical controls of patients presenting with LVO and receiving a mechanical thrombectomy between January 2018 and December 2020. RESULTS: The total cohort was 575 patients with acute LVO; 194 patients had COVID-19 while 381 patients did not. Patients in the COVID-19 group were younger (62.5 vs 71.2; P < .001) and lacked vascular risk factors (49, 25.3% vs 54, 14.2%; P = .001). Modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 3 revascularization was less common in the COVID-19 group (74, 39.2% vs 252, 67.2%; P < .001). Poor functional outcome at discharge (defined as modified Ranklin Scale 3-6) was more common in the COVID-19 group (150, 79.8% vs 132, 66.7%; P = .004). COVID-19 was independently associated with a lower likelihood of achieving modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 3 (odds ratio [OR]: 0.4, 95% CI: 0.2-0.7; P < .001) and unfavorable outcomes (OR: 2.5, 95% CI: 1.4-4.5; P = .002). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 was an independent predictor of incomplete revascularization and poor outcomes in patients with stroke due to LVO. Patients with COVID-19 with LVO were younger, had fewer cerebrovascular risk factors, and suffered from higher morbidity/mortality rates.

International controlled study of revascularization and outcomes following COVID-positive mechanical thrombectomy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Previous studies suggest that mechanisms and outcomes in patients with COVID-19-associated stroke differ from those in patients with non-COVID-19-associated strokes, but there is limited comparative evidence focusing on these populations. The aim of this study, therefore, was to determine if a significant association exists between COVID-19 status with revascularization and functional outcomes following thrombectomy for large vessel occlusion (LVO), after adjustment for potential confounding factors. METHODS: A cross-sectional, international multicenter retrospective study was conducted in consecutively admitted COVID-19 patients with concomitant acute LVO, compared to a control group without COVID-19. Data collected included age, gender, comorbidities, clinical characteristics, details of the involved vessels, procedural technique, and various outcomes. A multivariable-adjusted analysis was conducted. RESULTS: In this cohort of 697 patients with acute LVO, 302 had COVID-19 while 395 patients did not. There was a significant difference (p < 0.001) in the mean age (in years) and gender of patients, with younger patients and more males in the COVID-19 group. In terms of favorable revascularization (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction [mTICI] grade 3), COVID-19 was associated with lower odds of complete revascularization (odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23-0.48; p < 0.001), which persisted on multivariable modeling with adjustment for other predictors (adjusted odds ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.12-0.77; p = 0.012). Moreover, endovascular complications, in-hospital mortality, and length of hospital stay were significantly higher among COVID-19 patients (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 was an independent predictor of incomplete revascularization and poor functional outcome in patients with stroke due to LVO. Furthermore, COVID-19 patients with LVO were more often younger and had higher morbidity/mortality rates.

Characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of Myasthenia Gravis in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies suggest that the clinical course and outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and myasthenia gravis (MG) are highly variable. We performed a systematic review of the relevant literature with a key aim to assess the outcomes of invasive ventilation, mortality, and hospital length of stay (HLoS) for patients presenting with MG and COVID-19. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and MedRxiv databases for original articles that reported patients with MG and COVID-19. We included all clinical studies that reported MG in patients with confirmed COVID-19 cases via RT-PCR tests. We collected data on patient background characteristics, symptoms, time between MG and COVID-19 diagnosis, MG and COVID-19 treatments, HLoS, and mortality at last available follow-up. We reported summary statistics as counts and percentages or mean±SD. When necessary, inverse variance weighting was used to aggregate patient-level data and summary statistics. RESULTS: Nineteen studies with 152 patients (mean age 54.4 ± 12.7 years; 79/152 [52.0%] female) were included. Hypertension (62/141, 44.0%) and diabetes (30/141, 21.3%) were the most common comorbidities. The mean time between the diagnosis of MG and COVID-19 was7.0 ± 6.3 years. Diagnosis of COVID-19 was confirmed in all patients via RT-PCR tests. Fever (40/59, 67.8%) and ptosis (9/55, 16.4%) were the most frequent COVID-19 and MG symptoms, respectively. Azithromycin and ceftriaxone were the most common COVID-19 treatments, while prednisone and intravenous immunoglobulin were the most common MG treatments. Invasive ventilation treatment was required for 25/59 (42.4%) of patients. The mean HLoS was 18.2 ± 9.9 days. The mortality rate was 18/152 (11.8%). CONCLUSION: This report provides an overview of the characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of MG in COVID-19 patients. Although COVID-19 may exaggerate the neurological symptoms and worsens the outcome in MG patients, we did not find enough evidence to support this notion. Further studies with larger numbers of patients with MG and COVID-19 are needed to better assess the clinical outcomes in these patients.

Delays in thrombolysis during COVID-19 are associated with worse neurological outcomes: the Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology Multicenter Collaboration.

INTRODUCTION: We have demonstrated in a multicenter cohort that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a delay in intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) among stroke patients. Whether this delay contributes to meaningful short-term outcome differences in these patients warranted further exploration. METHODS: We conducted a nested observational cohort study of adult acute ischemic stroke patients receiving IVT from 9 comprehensive stroke centers across 7 U.S states. Patients admitted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (1/1/2019-02/29/2020) were compared to patients admitted during the early pandemic (3/1/2020-7/31/2020). Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the effect of IVT delay on discharge to hospice or death, with treatment delay on admission during COVID-19 included as an interaction term. RESULTS: Of the 676 thrombolysed patients, the median age was 70 (IQR 58-81) years, 313 were female (46.3%), and the median NIHSS was 8 (IQR 4-16). Longer treatment delays were observed during COVID-19 (median 46 vs 38 min, p = 0.01) and were associated with higher in-hospital death/hospice discharge irrespective of admission period (OR per hour 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.17, p = 0.03). This effect was strengthened after multivariable adjustment (aOR 1.15, 95% CI 1.07-1.24, p < 0.001). There was no interaction of treatment delay on admission during COVID-19 (pinteraction = 0.65). Every one-hour delay in IVT was also associated with 7% lower odds of being discharged to home or acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (aOR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89-0.97, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Treatment delays observed during the COVID-19 pandemic led to greater early mortality and hospice care, with a lower probability of discharge to home/rehabilitation facility. There was no effect modification of treatment delay on admission during the pandemic, indicating that treatment delay at any time contributes similarly to these short-term outcomes.

An observational cohort study to assess N-acetylglucosamine for COVID-19 treatment in the inpatient setting.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected millions globally, with a continued need for effective treatments. N-acetylglucosamine has anti-inflammatory activities and modulates immune response. This study evaluated whether N-acetylglucosamine administered orally improves clinical outcomes for patients admitted to the hospital due to COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-center, prospective, observational cohort study used a retrospective control group for comparison. Multivariate analyses evaluated whether N-acetylglucosamine was an independent predictor of primary outcomes (rate of intubation, hospital length-of-stay, and mortality) and select secondary outcomes (intensive care unit [ICU] admission, ICU length-of-stay, supplemental oxygen use duration, hospice initiation, and poor clinical outcome [defined as combined hospice initiation/death]). RESULTS: Of the 50 patients enrolled in the N-acetylglucosamine treatment group, 48 patients had follow-up data (50.0% [24/48] male; median age 63 years, range: 29-88). Multivariate analysis showed the treatment group had improved hospital length-of-stay (ß: 4.27 [95% confidence interval (CI) -5.67; -2.85], p < 0.001), ICU admission (odds ratio [OR] 0.32 [95% CI 0.10; 0.96], p = 0.049), and poor clinical outcome (OR 0.30 [95% CI 0.09; 0.86], p = 0.034). Mortality was significantly lower for treatment versus control on univariate analysis (12.5% vs. 28.0%, respectively; p = 0.039) and approached significance on multivariate analysis (p = 0.081). CONCLUSIONS: N-acetylglucosamine administration was associated with reduced hospital length-of-stay, ICU admission rates, and death/hospice rates in adults with COVID-19 compared to those who received standard care alone. An upcoming trial will further investigate N-acetylglucosamine's effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04706416.

COVID-19 and Delayed Cerebral Ischemia-More in Common Than First Meets the Eye.

Since the arrival of the global COVID-19 pandemic scientists around the world have been working to understand the pathological mechanisms resulting from infection. There has gradually been an understanding that COVID-19 triggers a widespread endotheliopathy and that this can result in a widespread thrombosis and in particular a microthrombosis. The mechanisms involved in the microthrombosis are not confined to infection and there is evidence that patients with aneurysmal sub-arachnoid haemorrhage (SAH) also suffer from an endotheliopathy and microthrombosis. In this article we attempt to shed light on similarities in the underlying processes involved in both diseases and suggest potential treatment options.

Corticosteroid therapy for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroid treatment is an effective and common therapeutic strategy for various inflammatory lung pathologies and may be an effective treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature was to investigate the clinical outcomes associated with corticosteroid treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Scopus databases through March 10, 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of corticosteroid therapies for COVID-19 treatment. Outcomes of interest were mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, serious adverse events (SAEs), and superinfection. RESULTS: A total of 7737 patients from 8 RCTs were included in the quantitative meta-analysis, of which 2795 (36.1%) patients received corticosteroids plus standard of care (SOC) while 4942 (63.9%) patients received placebo and/or SOC alone. The odds of mortality were significantly lower in patients that received corticosteroids as compared to SOC (odds ratio [OR] = 0.85 [95% CI: 0.76; 0.95], P = .003). Corticosteroid treatment reduced the odds of a need for mechanical ventilation as compared to SOC (OR = 0.76 [95% CI: 0.59; 0.97], P = .030). There was no significant difference between the corticosteroid and SOC groups with regards to SAEs and superinfections. CONCLUSION: Corticosteroid treatment can reduce the odds for mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation in severe COVID-19 patients.

Global impact of COVID-19 on stroke care.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic led to profound changes in the organization of health care systems worldwide. AIMS: We sought to measure the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the volumes for mechanical thrombectomy, stroke, and intracranial hemorrhage hospitalizations over a three-month period at the height of the pandemic (1 March-31 May 2020) compared with two control three-month periods (immediately preceding and one year prior). METHODS: Retrospective, observational, international study, across 6 continents, 40 countries, and 187 comprehensive stroke centers. The diagnoses were identified by their ICD-10 codes and/or classifications in stroke databases at participating centers. RESULTS: The hospitalization volumes for any stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and mechanical thrombectomy were 26,699, 4002, and 5191 in the three months immediately before versus 21,576, 3540, and 4533 during the first three pandemic months, representing declines of 19.2% (95%CI, -19.7 to -18.7), 11.5% (95%CI, -12.6 to -10.6), and 12.7% (95%CI, -13.6 to -11.8), respectively. The decreases were noted across centers with high, mid, and low COVID-19 hospitalization burden, and also across high, mid, and low volume stroke/mechanical thrombectomy centers. High-volume COVID-19 centers (-20.5%) had greater declines in mechanical thrombectomy volumes than mid- (-10.1%) and low-volume (-8.7%) centers (p < 0.0001). There was a 1.5% stroke rate across 54,366 COVID-19 hospitalizations. SARS-CoV-2 infection was noted in 3.9% (784/20,250) of all stroke admissions. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a global decline in the volume of overall stroke hospitalizations, mechanical thrombectomy procedures, and intracranial hemorrhage admission volumes. Despite geographic variations, these volume reductions were observed regardless of COVID-19 hospitalization burden and pre-pandemic stroke/mechanical thrombectomy volumes.

Epidemiological Surveillance of the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Stroke Care Using Artificial Intelligence.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The degree to which the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected systems of care, in particular, those for time-sensitive conditions such as stroke, remains poorly quantified. We sought to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 in the overall screening for acute stroke utilizing a commercial clinical artificial intelligence platform. METHODS: Data were derived from the Viz Platform, an artificial intelligence application designed to optimize the workflow of patients with acute stroke. Neuroimaging data on suspected patients with stroke across 97 hospitals in 20 US states were collected in real time and retrospectively analyzed with the number of patients undergoing imaging screening serving as a surrogate for the amount of stroke care. The main outcome measures were the number of computed tomography (CT) angiography, CT perfusion, large vessel occlusions (defined according to the automated software detection), and severe strokes on CT perfusion (defined as those with hypoperfusion volumes >70 mL) normalized as number of patients per day per hospital. Data from the prepandemic (November 4, 2019 to February 29, 2020) and pandemic (March 1 to May 10, 2020) periods were compared at national and state levels. Correlations were made between the inter-period changes in imaging screening, stroke hospitalizations, and thrombectomy procedures using state-specific sampling. RESULTS: A total of 23 223 patients were included. The incidence of large vessel occlusion on CT angiography and severe strokes on CT perfusion were 11.2% (n=2602) and 14.7% (n=1229/8328), respectively. There were significant declines in the overall number of CT angiographies (-22.8%; 1.39-1.07 patients/day per hospital, P<0.001) and CT perfusion (-26.1%; 0.50-0.37 patients/day per hospital, P<0.001) as well as in the incidence of large vessel occlusion (-17.1%; 0.15-0.13 patients/day per hospital, P<0.001) and severe strokes on CT perfusion (-16.7%; 0.12-0.10 patients/day per hospital, P<0.005). The sampled cohort showed similar declines in the rates of large vessel occlusions versus thrombectomy (18.8% versus 19.5%, P=0.9) and comprehensive stroke center hospitalizations (18.8% versus 11.0%, P=0.4). CONCLUSIONS: A significant decline in stroke imaging screening has occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. This analysis underscores the broader application of artificial intelligence neuroimaging platforms for the real-time monitoring of stroke systems of care.

Endovascular thrombectomy time metrics in the era of COVID-19: observations from the Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology Multicenter Collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Unprecedented workflow shifts during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have contributed to delays in acute care delivery, but whether it adversely affected endovascular thrombectomy metrics in acute large vessel occlusion (LVO) is unknown. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of observational data from 14 comprehensive stroke centers in nine US states with acute LVO. EVT metrics were compared between March to July 2019 against March to July 2020 (primary analysis), and between state-specific pre-peak and peak COVID-19 months (secondary analysis), with multivariable adjustment. RESULTS: Of the 1364 patients included in the primary analysis (51% female, median NIHSS 14 [IQR 7-21], and 74% of whom underwent EVT), there was no difference in the primary outcome of door-to-puncture (DTP) time between the 2019 control period and the COVID-19 period (median 71 vs 67 min, P=0.10). After adjustment for variables associated with faster DTP, and clustering by site, there remained a trend toward shorter DTP during the pandemic (ßadj=-73.2, 95% CI -153.8-7.4, Pp=0.07). There was no difference in DTP times according to local COVID-19 peaks vs pre-peak months in unadjusted or adjusted multivariable regression (ßadj=-3.85, 95% CI -36.9-29.2, P=0.80). In this final multivariable model (secondary analysis), faster DTP times were significantly associated with transfer from an outside institution (ßadj=-46.44, 95% CI -62.8 to - -30.0, P<0.01) and higher NIHSS (ßadj=-2.15, 95% CI -4.2to - -0.1, P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-center study, there was no delay in EVT among patients treated for intracranial occlusion during the COVID-19 era compared with the pre-COVID era.

Efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine clinical outcomes associated with convalescent plasma therapy in COVID-19 patients. We performed a literature search on PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify studies published up to December 10th, 2020 that examined the efficacy of convalescent plasma treatment for COVID-19. The primary endpoints were mortality, clinical improvement, and hospital length of stay. We screened 859 studies that met the search criteria, performed full-text reviews of 56 articles, and identified 15 articles that fulfilled inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. The odds of mortality were significantly lower in the convalescent plasma group compared to the control group (OR = 0.59 [95% CI = 0.44; 0.78], P < .001), although results from two key randomized controlled trials did not support the mortality benefit. The odds of clinical improvement were significantly higher in the convalescent plasma group compared to the control group (OR = 2.02 [95% CI = 1.54; 2.65], P < .001). There was no difference in hospital length of stay between the convalescent plasma group and the control group (MD = -0.49 days [95% CI = -3.11; 2.12], P = .713). In all, these data indicate that a mortality benefit with convalescent plasma is unclear, although there remain benefits with convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19.

Decline in mild stroke presentations and intravenous thrombolysis during the COVID-19 pandemic: The Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology Multicenter Collaboration.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate overall ischemic stroke volumes and rates, specific subtypes, and clinical presentation during the COVID-19 pandemic in a multicenter observational study from eight states across US. METHODS: We compared all ischemic strokes admitted between January 2019 and May 2020, grouped as; March-May 2020 (COVID-19 period) and March-May 2019 (seasonal pre-COVID-19 period). Primary outcome was stroke severity at admission measured by NIHSS stratified as mild (0-7), moderate [8-14], and severe (>14). Secondary outcomes were volume of large vessel occlusions (LVOs), stroke etiology, IV-tPA rates, and discharge disposition. RESULTS: Of the 7969 patients diagnosed with acute ischemic stroke during the study period, 933 (12 %) presented in the COVID-19 period while 1319 (17 %) presented in the seasonal pre-COVID-19 period. Significant decline was observed in the mean weekly volumes of newly diagnosed ischemic strokes (98 ± 3 vs 50 ± 20,p = 0.003), LVOs (16.5 ± 3.8 vs 8.3 ± 5.9,p = 0.008), and IV-tPA (10.9 ± 3.4 vs 5.3 ± 2.9,p = 0.0047), whereas the mean weekly proportion of LVOs (18 % ±5 vs 16 % ±7,p = 0.24) and IV-tPA (10.4 % ±4.5 vs. 9.9 % ±2.4,p = 0.66) remained the same, when compared to the seasonal pre-COVID-19 period. Additionally, an increased proportion of patients presented with a severe disease (NIHSS > 14) during the COVID-19 period (29.7 % vs 24.5 %,p < 0.025). The odds of being discharged to home were 26 % greater in the COVID-19 period when compared to seasonal pre-COVID-19 period (OR:1.26, 95 % CI:1.07-1.49,p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: During COVID-19 period there was a decrease in volume of newly diagnosed ischemic stroke cases and IV-tPA administration. Patients admitted to the hospital had severe neurological clinical presentation and were more likely to discharge home.

Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Treatment Times for Acute Ischemic Stroke: The Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology Multicenter Collaboration.

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.

Cerebrovascular events and outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: The SVIN COVID-19 Multinational Registry.

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.

The professional and personal impact of the coronavirus pandemic on US neurointerventional practices: a nationwide survey.

BACKGROUND: Little is currently known about the effects of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on neurointerventional (NI) procedural volumes or its toll on physician wellness. METHODS: A 37-question online survey was designed and distributed to physician members of three NI physician organizations. RESULTS: A total of 151 individual survey responses were obtained. Reduced mechanical thrombectomy procedures compared with pre-pandemic were observed with 32% reporting a greater than 50% reduction in thrombectomy volumes. In concert with most (76%) reporting at least a 25% reduction in non-mechanical thrombectomy urgent NI procedures and a nearly unanimous (96%) cessation of non-urgent elective cases, 68% of physicians reported dramatic reductions (>50%) in overall NI procedural volume compared with pre-pandemic. Increased door-to-puncture times were reported by 79%. COVID-19-positive infections occurred in 1% of physician respondents: an additional 8% quarantined for suspected infection. Sixty-six percent of respondents reported increased career stress, 56% increased personal life/family stress, and 35% increased career burnout. Stress was significantly increased in physicians with COVID-positive family members (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study designed to understand the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on NI physician practices, case volumes, compensation, personal/family stresses, and work-related burnout. Future studies examining these factors following the resumption of elective cases and relaxing of social distancing measures will be necessary to better understand these phenomena.

Neuroendovascular clinical trials disruptions due to COVID-19. Potential future challenges and opportunities.

To assess the impact of COVID-19 on neurovascular research and deal with the challenges imposed by the pandemic. METHODS: A survey-based study focused on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and single-arm studies for acute ischemic stroke and cerebral aneurysms was developed by a group of senior neurointerventionalists and sent to sites identified through the clinical trials website (https://clinicaltrials.gov/), study sponsors, and physician investigators. RESULTS: The survey was sent to 101 institutions, with 65 responding (64%). Stroke RCTs were being conducted at 40 (62%) sites, aneurysm RCTs at 22 (34%) sites, stroke single-arm studies at 37 (57%) sites, and aneurysm single-arm studies at 43 (66%) sites. Following COVID-19, enrollment was suspended at 51 (78%) sites-completely at 21 (32%) and partially at 30 (46%) sites. Missed trial-related clinics and imaging follow-ups and protocol deviations were reported by 27 (42%), 24 (37%), and 27 (42%) sites, respectively. Negative reimbursements were reported at 17 (26%) sites. The majority of sites, 49 (75%), had put new trials on hold. Of the coordinators, 41 (63%) worked from home and 20 (31%) reported a personal financial impact. Remote consent was possible for some studies at 34 (52%) sites and for all studies at 5 (8%) sites. At sites with suspended trials (n=51), endovascular treatment without enrollment occurred at 31 (61%) sites for stroke and 23 (45%) sites for aneurysms. A total of 277 patients with acute ischemic stroke and 184 with cerebral aneurysms were treated without consideration for trial enrollment. CONCLUSION: Widespread disruption of neuroendovascular trials occurred because of COVID-19. As sites resume clinical research, steps to mitigate similar challenges in the future should be considered.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 and the Cerebrovascular-Cardiovascular Systems: What Do We Know So Far?

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic of 2019 to 2020 has resulted in multiple hospitalizations, deaths, and economic hardships worldwide. Although respiratory involvement in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is well known, the potential cardiovascular and cerebrovascular manifestations are less understood. We performed a PubMed and Google Scholar search and reviewed relevant literature on COVID-19 and cardiovascular system involvement. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 possesses high affinity for angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor, which is highly concentrated in the lungs and cardiovascular tissue, thereby provoking concern for cardiovascular involvement in COVID-19 cases. Preexisting cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease has been shown in previous reports to be a risk factor for severe infection. On the basis of our review of published studies, COVID-19 patients may be more likely to experience acute cardiac injury, arrhythmia, coagulation defects, and acute stroke and are likely to have poorer outcomes as a result. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, more data about potential cardiovascular and cerebrovascular manifestations of the disease are required.