Effect of P2Y12 Inhibitors on Organ Support-Free Survival in Critically Ill Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Platelet activation is a potential therapeutic target in patients with COVID-19. Objective: To evaluate the effect of P2Y12 inhibition among critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This international, open-label, adaptive platform, 1:1 randomized clinical trial included critically ill (requiring intensive care-level support) patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Patients were enrolled between February 26, 2021, through June 22, 2022. Enrollment was discontinued on June 22, 2022, by the trial leadership in coordination with the study sponsor given a marked slowing of the enrollment rate of critically ill patients. Intervention: Participants were randomly assigned to receive a P2Y12 inhibitor or no P2Y12 inhibitor (usual care) for 14 days or until hospital discharge, whichever was sooner. Ticagrelor was the preferred P2Y12 inhibitor. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death and, for participants who survived to hospital discharge, the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 of the index hospitalization. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding, as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis. Results: At the time of trial termination, 949 participants (median [IQR] age, 56 [46-65] years; 603 male [63.5%]) had been randomly assigned, 479 to the P2Y12 inhibitor group and 470 to usual care. In the P2Y12 inhibitor group, ticagrelor was used in 372 participants (78.8%) and clopidogrel in 100 participants (21.2%). The estimated adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for the effect of P2Y12 inhibitor on organ support-free days was 1.07 (95% credible interval, 0.85-1.33). The posterior probability of superiority (defined as an OR > 1.0) was 72.9%. Overall, 354 participants (74.5%) in the P2Y12 inhibitor group and 339 participants (72.4%) in the usual care group survived to hospital discharge (median AOR, 1.15; 95% credible interval, 0.84-1.55; posterior probability of superiority, 80.8%). Major bleeding occurred in 13 participants (2.7%) in the P2Y12 inhibitor group and 13 (2.8%) in the usual care group. The estimated mortality rate at 90 days for the P2Y12 inhibitor group was 25.5% and for the usual care group was 27.0% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.76-1.23; P = .77). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of critically ill participants hospitalized for COVID-19, treatment with a P2Y12 inhibitor did not improve the number of days alive and free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support. The use of the P2Y12 inhibitor did not increase major bleeding compared with usual care. These data do not support routine use of a P2Y12 inhibitor in critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04505774.

Stroke network performance during the first COVID-19 pandemic stage: A meta-analysis based on stroke network models.

BACKGROUND: The effect of the COVID pandemic on stroke network performance is unclear, particularly with consideration of drip&ship vs. mothership models. AIMS: We systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed variations in stroke admissions, rate and timing of reperfusion treatments during the first wave COVID pandemic vs. the pre-pandemic timeframe depending on stroke network model adopted. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: The systematic review followed registered protocol (PROSPERO-CRD42020211535), PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL until 9 October 2020 for studies reporting variations in ischemic stroke admissions, treatment rates, and timing in COVID (first wave) vs. control-period. Primary outcome was the weekly admission incidence rate ratio (IRR = admissions during COVID-period/admissions during control-period). Secondary outcomes were (i) changes in rate of reperfusion treatments and (ii) time metrics for pre- and in-hospital phase. Data were pooled using random-effects models, comparing mothership vs. drip&ship model. Overall, 29 studies were included in quantitative synthesis (n = 212,960). COVID-period was associated with a significant reduction in stroke admission rates (IRR = 0.69, 95%CI = 0.61-0.79), with higher relative presentation of large vessel occlusion (risk ratio (RR) = 1.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.24-2.12). Proportions of patients treated with endovascular treatment increased (RR = 1.14, 95%CI = 1.02-1.28). Intravenous thrombolysis decreased overall (IRR = 0.72, 95%CI = 0.54-0.96) but not in the mothership model (IRR = 0.81, 95%CI = 0.43-1.52). Onset-to-door time was longer for the drip&ship in COVID-period compared to the control-period (+32 min, 95%CI = 0-64). Door-to-scan was longer in COVID-period (+5 min, 95%CI = 2-7). Door-to-needle and door-to-groin were similar in COVID-period and control-period. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a 35% drop in stroke admissions during the first pandemic wave, proportions of patients receiving reperfusion and time-metrics were not inferior to control-period. Mothership preserved the weekly rate of intravenous thrombolysis and the onset-to-door timing to pre-pandemic standards.

Effect of COVID-19 on Emergent Stroke Care: A Regional Experience.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Anecdotal evidence suggests that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic mitigation efforts may inadvertently discourage patients from seeking treatment for stroke with resultant increased morbidity and mortality. Analysis of regional data, while hospital capacities for acute stroke care remained fully available, offers an opportunity to assess this. We report regional Stroke Team acute activations and reperfusion treatments during COVID-19 mitigation activities. METHODS: Using case log data prospectively collected by a Stroke Team exclusively serving ≈2 million inhabitants and 30 healthcare facilities, we retrospectively reviewed volumes of consultations and reperfusion treatments for acute ischemic stroke. We compared volumes before and after announcements of COVID-19 mitigation measures and the prior calendar year. RESULTS: Compared with the 10 weeks prior, stroke consultations declined by 39% (95% CI, 32%-46%) in the 5 weeks after announcement of statewide school and restaurant closures in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. Results compared with the prior year and time trend analyses were consistent. Reperfusion treatments also appeared to decline by 31% (95% CI, 3%-51%), and specifically thrombolysis by 33% (95% CI, 4%-55%), but this finding had less precision. CONCLUSIONS: Upon the announcement of measures to mitigate COVID-19, regional acute stroke consultations declined significantly. Reperfusion treatment rates, particularly thrombolysis, also appeared to decline qualitatively, and this finding requires further study. Urgent public education is necessary to mitigate a possible crisis of avoiding essential emergency care due to COVID-19.

Preserving stroke care during the COVID-19 pandemic: Potential issues and solutions.

The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic requires drastic changes in allocation of resources, which can affect the delivery of stroke care, and many providers are seeking guidance. As caregivers, we are guided by 3 distinct principles that will occasionally conflict during the pandemic: (1) we must ensure the best care for those stricken with COVID-19, (2) we must provide excellent care and advocacy for patients with cerebrovascular disease and their families, and (3) we must advocate for the safety of health care personnel managing patients with stroke, with particular attention to those most vulnerable, including trainees. This descriptive review by a diverse group of experts in stroke care aims to provide advice by specifically addressing the potential impact of this pandemic on (1) the quality of the stroke care delivered, (2) ethical considerations in stroke care, (3) safety and logistic issues for providers of patients with stroke, and (4) stroke research. Our recommendations on these issues represent our best opinions given the available information, but are subject to revision as the situation related to the COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve. We expect that ongoing emergent research will offer additional insights that will provide evidence that could prompt the modification or removal of some of these recommendations.