ABSTRACT
Dr. Salinas and colleagues examined the association of loneliness at baseline with 10-year all-cause dementia risk and early cognitive and neuroanatomic imaging markers of Alzheimer disease and related dementia (ADRD) vulnerability in 2,308 participants in the population-based Framingham study cohorts. They found that loneliness was associated with increased dementia risk, with the risk tripling in adults whose baseline risk would otherwise be fairly low on the basis of age and genetic risk and that loneliness was also associated with worse markers of ADRD vulnerability, implying a potential early pathogenetic role. In response, Dr. Daly notes that a similar association was seen between frailty and 10-year dementia risk. He suggests studying the relationship between longitudinal changes in loneliness and neuroanatomical or neuropathologic measures, and the relationship of loneliness to frailty. He also emphasizes the importance of taking action against loneliness in society, which was aggravated by the COVID-19 pandemic especially among lower socioeconomic strata, to mitigate further social disparities in dementia risk. Responding to these comments, Dr. Salinas notes that the study team has begun exploring longitudinal associations of loneliness with dementia-related measures in another cohort, and points to compelling findings of greater cortical amyloid and entorhinal tau accumulation in patients with loneliness in the Harvard Aging Brain Study. Dr. Salinas echoes the need for interventions targeting loneliness and social isolation. This correspondence underscores our growing understanding of the role that psychosocial determinants of health play in the development of dementia. Although it seems clear that a social brain fares better than a lonely one over time, the question remains as to whether the lonely brain can be "rescued" by social interventions.
ABSTRACT
Background and purpose: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with a small but clinically significant risk of stroke, the cause of which is frequently cryptogenic. In a large multinational cohort of consecutive COVID-19 patients with stroke, we evaluated clinical predictors of cryptogenic stroke, short-term functional outcomes and in-hospital mortality among patients according to stroke etiology. Methods: We explored clinical characteristics and short-term outcomes of consecutively evaluated patients 18 years of age or older with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and laboratory-confirmed COVID- 19 from 31 hospitals in 4 countries (3/1/20-6/16/20). Results: Of the 14.483 laboratory-confirmed patients with COVID-19, 156 (1.1%) were diagnosed with AIS. Sixty-one (39.4%) were female, 84 (67.2%) white, and 88 (61.5%) were between 60-79 years of age. The most frequently reported etiology of AIS was cryptogenic (55/129, 42.6%), which was associated with significantly higher white blood cell count, c-reactive protein, and D-dimer levels than non-cryptogenic AIS patients (p</=0.05 for all comparisons). In a multivariable backward stepwise regression model estimating the odds of in-hospital mortality, cryptogenic stroke mechanism was associated with a fivefold greater odds in-hospital mortality than strokes due to any other mechanism (adjusted OR 5.16, 95%CI 1.41-18.87, p=0.01). In that model, older age (aOR2.05 per decade, 95%CI 1.35-3.11, p<0.01) and higher baseline NIHSS (aOR 1.12, 95%CI 1.02-1.21, p=0.01) were also independently predictive of mortality. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that cryptogenic stroke among COVID-19 patients may berelated to more severe disease and carries a significant risk of early mortality.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: To evaluate overall ischemic stroke 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), March-May 2019 (seasonal pre-COVID period) and November 2019-January 2020 (immediate 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) symptoms. Secondary outcomes were number of large vessel occlusions (LVOs), stroke etiology, IV-tPA rates, and disposition. Results: Of the 7,969 patients diagnosed with acute stroke during the study period, 933 (12%) presented in the COVID-19 period, 1319 (17%), and 1254 (16%) presented in the seasonal pre- COVID-19 and immediate pre-COVID-19 periods, respectively. Significant decline was observed in the weekly mean volume of newly diagnosed strokes (98±7.3 vs 50±20, p<0.01 and 95±10.5 vs 50±20, p<0.01), LVOs (16.5±3.8 vs 8.3±5.9, p<0.01 and 14.3± 4.5 vs 8.3±5.9, p<0.01), and IV-tPA (5.3±2.9 vs 10.9±3.4 and 12.7±4.1, p<0.01). Mean weekly proportion of LVOs remained the same, when compared with seasonal pre-COVID-19 period (18%±5 vs 16%±7, p=0.24) and immediate pre-COVID-19 period (17.4%±4 vs. 16%±7, p=0.32). Additionally, these patients presented with less severe disease (NIHSS<14;aOR: 0.63, 95%CI: 0.41-0.97, p=0.035) during the COVID-19 period ascompared to immediate pre-COVID-19 period. Conclusions: We observed a decrease in newly diagnosed stroke cases and rates of IV-tPAadministration, while the LVO frequency remained unchanged during the COVID-19 pandemic.Additionally, these stroke patients had more severe presentations.
ABSTRACT
Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been associated with a significant risk of thrombotic events in critically ill patients. Aims: 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 4 countries (2/1/2020 - 06/16/2020). 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%) of whom were female and 96/172 (55.8%) were between the ages 60-79 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 strokeseverity, 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, andintracranial occlusion), cryptogenic stroke mechanism (aOR 5.01, 95%CI 1.63-15.44, p<0.01), olderage (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 withstroke and COVID-19. Conclusions: COVID-19 is associated with a small but significant risk of clinically relevantcerebrovascular events, particularly ischemic stroke. The mortality rate is high for COVID-19associated cerebrovascular complications, therefore aggressive monitoring and early interventionshould be pursued to mitigate poor outcomes.
ABSTRACT
Background: We sought to evaluate whether the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may have contributed to delays in acute stroke management at Comprehensive Stroke Centers (CSCs). Methods: Pooled clinical data of consecutive adult stroke patients from 12 U.S. CSCs (1/1/2019- 5/31/2020) were queried. The rate of thrombolysis for non-transferred patients within the Target: Stroke goal of 60min was compared between patients admitted 3/1/2019-5/31/2019 (pre-COVID-19) and 3/1/2020-5/31/2020 (COVID-19). The time from arrival to imaging and treatment with thrombolysis or thrombectomy, as continuous variables, were also assessed. Results: Of the 7906 patients included, 1319 were admitted pre-COVID-19 and 933 were admitted during COVID-19, 15% of whom underwent intravenous thrombolysis. There was no difference in the rate of thrombolysis within 60min during COVID-19 (OR 0.88, 95%CI 0.42-1.86, p=0.74), despite adjustment for variables associated with earlier treatment (adjusted OR 0.82, 95%CI 0.38-1.76, p=0.61). There was no significant overall delay to thrombolysis during the COVID-19 period vs. pe- COVID-19 (p=0.42), even after multivariable adjustment (p=0.63) or after comparison across months leading to COVID-19 (Figure). The only independent predictor of delayed treatment time between periods was the use of emergency medical services (adjusted β=-6.93, 95%CI -12.83 -1.04, p=0.03). There was no significant delay from hospital arrival to imaging in all patients, or imaging to skin puncture in patients who underwent thrombectomy. Conclusions: There was no independent effect of the COVID-19 period on delays in acute care with respect to thrombolysis or thrombectomy in this multicenter observational cohort. Further studies are warranted to externally validate these findings, and determine if site volume or center accreditation may mediate a collateral effect of the pandemic on stroke care paradigms.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Although there is evidence to suggest a high rate of cerebrovascular complications in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, anecdotal reports indicate a falling rate of new ischemic stroke diagnoses. We conducted an exploratory single-center analysis to estimate the change in number of new stroke diagnoses in our region, and evaluate the proximate reasons for this change during the COVID-19 pandemic at a tertiary care center in New Jersey. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Comprehensive Stroke Center prospective cohort was retrospectively analyzed for the number of stroke admissions, demographic features, and short-term outcomes 5 months prior to 3/1/2020 (pre-COVID-19), and in the 6 weeks that followed (COVID-19 period). The primary outcome was the number of new acute stroke diagnoses before and during the COVID-19 period, as well as the potential reasons for a decline in the number of new diagnoses. RESULTS: Of the 328 included patients, 53 (16%) presented in the COVID-19 period. There was a mean fall of 38% in new stroke diagnoses (mean 1.13/day [SD 1.07] from 1.82/day [SD 1.38], p<0.01), which was related to a 59% decline in the number of daily transfers from referral centers (p<0.01), 25% fewer telestroke consultations (p=0.08), and 55% fewer patients presenting directly to our institution by private vehicle (p<0.01) and 29% fewer patients through emergency services (p=0.09). There was no significant change in the monthly number of strokes due to large vessel occlusion (LVO), however the proportion of new LVOs nearly doubled in the COVID-19 period (38% vs. 21%, p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The observations at our tertiary care center corroborate anecdotal reports that the number of new stroke diagnoses is falling, which seems related to a smaller proportion of patients seeking healthcare services for milder symptoms. These preliminary data warrant validation in larger, multi-center studies.