Multidomain cognitive dysfunction after minor stroke suggests generalized disruption of cognitive networks.

OBJECTIVE: Although small strokes typically result in "good" functional outcomes, significant cognitive impairment can occur. This longitudinal study examined a cohort of patients with minor stroke to determine the pattern of deficits, evolution over time, and factors associated with outcome. METHODS: Patients admitted to the hospital with their first clinical minor stroke (NIH Stroke Scale [NIHSS] ≤ 10, absence of severe hemiparesis, aphasia, or neglect) were assessed at 1 month post-infarct, and a subset were followed over time (with 6- and 12-month evaluations). Composite scores at each time point were generated for global cognition, verbal memory, spatial memory, motor speed, processing speed, and executive function. Paired t-tests evaluated change in scores over time. Regression models identified factors associated with initial performance and better recovery. RESULTS: Eighty patients were enrolled, evaluated at 1 month, and prospectively followed. The average age of the participants was 62.3 years, and mean education was 13.5 years. The average stroke volume was 6.6 cc; mean NIHSS score was 2.8. At 1 month, cognitive scores were below the normative range and > 1 standard deviation below the patient's peak ("recovery") score for every cognitive domain, strongly suggesting that they were well below patients' prestroke baselines. Forty-eight patients followed up at 6 months, and 39 at 12 months. Nearly all (98%) patients significantly improved in global cognition (averaged across domains) between 1 and 6 months. Between 6 and 12 months, recovery was variable. Higher education, occupational class, and Caucasian race were associated with higher recovery scores for most domains. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive impairment across multiple domains is common following minor stroke regardless of infarct location, suggesting a global process such as network dysfunction that improves over 6 months. Degree of recovery can be predicted using baseline factors.

The telemedicine experience: using principles of clinical excellence to identify disparities and optimize care.

ABSTRACT: The use of telemedicine has increased significantly during the Corona virus disease 2019 pandemic. This manuscript serves to identify the underlying principles of clinical excellence in telemedicine and to determine whether effective care practices can be generalized as a one-size-fits-all model or must instead be tailored to individual patient populations.A survey assessing care quality and patient satisfaction for patients using telemedicine was created and administered via email to 2 urban cohorts of varying demographics and socioeconomic backgrounds: a population of patients with prior stroke and cerebrovascular disease, and a cohort of patients followed for interstitial lung disease. Results were compared across groups to determine the generalizability of effective practices across populations.Individuals taking part in telemedicine were more likely to be White, more affluent, and woman, regardless of clinical diagnosis compared with a similar cohort of patients seen in-person the year prior. A lower-than-expected number of patients who were Black and of lower socioeconomic status followed up virtually, indicating potential barriers to access. Overall, patients who participated in televisits were satisfied with the experience and felt that the care met their medical needs; however, those who were older were more likely to experience technical difficulties and prefer in-person visits, while those with less education were less likely to feel that their questions were addressed in an understandable way.When thoughtfully designed, telemedicine practices can be an effective model for patient care, though implementation must consider population characteristics including age, education, and socioeconomic status, and strategies such as ease of access versus optimization of communication strategies should be tailored to meet individual patient needs.

COVID-19 and Vaccination in the Setting of Neurologic Disease: An Emerging Issue in Neurology.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has left many unanswered questions for patients with neurological disorders and the providers caring for them. Elderly and immunocompromised patients are at increased risk for severe symptoms due to COVID-19, and the virus may increase symptoms of underlying neurological illness, particularly for those with significant bulbar and respiratory weakness or other neurologic disability. Emerging SARS-CoV-2 vaccines offer substantial protection from symptomatic infection, but both patients and providers may have concerns regarding theoretical risks of vaccination, including vaccine safety and efficacy in the context of immunotherapy and the potential for precipitating or exacerbating neurological symptoms. In this statement on behalf of the Quality Committee of the AAN we review the current literature, focusing on COVID-19 infection in adults with neurological disease, in order to elucidate risks and benefits of vaccination in these individuals. Based on existing evidence, neurologists should recommend COVID-19 vaccination to their patients. For those patients being treated with immunotherapies, attention should be paid to timing of vaccination with respect to treatment and the potential for an attenuated immune response.