ABSTRACT
This study was conducted with the primary aim to distinguish patients with a true stroke versus a stroke mimic based on clinical features and imaging. We conducted a retrospective case-control study on 116 adult patients who received alteplase (tPA) to treat acute stroke at our hospital. We further analyzed 79 patients with a normal computed tomography angiography (CTA). Based on their magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain, they were divided into cases (stroke mimics) and controls (true strokes). Data were collected retrospectively by reviewing individual medical charts on the electronic medical record (EMR), including age, gender, history of stroke, seizure, hypertension, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, hyperlipidemia, presenting NIH Stroke Scale/Score, hemorrhagic conversion, history of migraine, history of depression, sidedness of symptoms and aphasia. Data were categorized to separate those who were later diagnosed to be stroke mimics by being-postictal, encephalopathic, in acute migraine, suffered post-stroke recrudescence (PSR) due to metabolic insult, or had conversion disorder when symptoms could not be attributed to any medical condition or mental illness. Of the 79 study subjects, 48 (60%) were stroke mimics. The mean age of the cohort was 68.67 years, and 46.8% of the study subjects were females. Based on the multivariate logistic regression analysis, factors associated with being a stroke mimic were older age, history of migraine, and a history of prior stroke. In conclusion, increased attention to history and clinical examination as the first step can aid in the proper diagnosis of strokes versus stroke mimics. Identifying stroke mimics early could help expedite hospital workup and prevent inadvertent investigations, reducing hospital occupancy during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. We could potentially avoid the administration of tPA to such patients, reducing both the cost and adverse effects of it. Every stroke can cause neurological deficits, but every deficit need not be a stroke.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The current COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented. As the numbers expand exponentially, a paucity of data regarding health care workers (HCWs), who are at the forefront of this disaster, exists. Hence we decided to conduct a study amongst the HCWs to determine the prevalence and risk factor stratification. METHODS: This was an online questionnaire-based survey of healthcare workers conducted at Max Super Speciality Hospital, Saket, New Delhi, India from 23rd March to 30th April 2020. Data on flu-like symptoms, travel history, posting in high-risk or low risk zones, and prophylactic drugs was collected. RESULTS: Out of the 18000 HCWs who were approached 4403 responded and adequate data of 3667 was available for analysis. 14.7% had flu-like symptoms. 1.8% (20/1113) of the participants tested were positive for the virus. HCWs posted in the high-risk zones had more symptoms than those working in low-risk zones (169/539, 31.4% vs 679/3128, 21.7%), p<0.001; but no difference in COVID-19 positivity rates (p=0.849). Symptomatic HCWs had higher positivity (10/193, 5.2%) than the asymptomatic ones (10/920, 1.1%), p=0.001. HCQ was taken by 755/1113 (67.8%) people and 14 (1.9%) of these reported positive for the virus. CONCLUSION: This is the first study on healthcare workers from India to the best of our knowledge. Our findings suggest that posting in a high-risk zone with adequate PPE does not pose higher risk to the HCWs. Moreover, HCQ as a prophylactic has no use. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04339608.