ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Stroke/therapy , Thrombolytic Therapy , Humans , Incidence , Pandemics , Reperfusion , Time-to-TreatmentABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There has been increasing reports associating the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with thromboembolic phenomenon including ischemic strokes and venous thromboembolism. Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) is a rare neurovascular emergency that has been observed in some COVID-19 patients, yet much remains to be learnt of its underlying pathophysiology. OBJECTIVE: We present a case series of local patients with concomitant COVID-19 infection and CVT; and aim to perform a systematic review of known cases in the current literature. METHODS: We describe two patients with concomitant COVID-19 infection and CVT from a nationwide registry in Singapore. We then conducted a literature search in PubMed and Embase using a suitable keyword search strategy from 1st December 2019 to 11th June 2020. All studies reporting CVT in COVID-19 patients were included. RESULTS: Nine studies and 14 COVID-19 patients with CVT were studied. The median age was 43 years (IQR=36-58) and majority had no significant past medical conditions (60.0%). The time taken from onset of COVID-19 symptoms to CVT diagnosis was a median of 7 days (IQR=6-14). CVT was commonly seen in the transverse (75.0%) and sigmoid sinus (50.0%); 33.3% had involvement of the deep venous sinus system. A significant proportion of patients had raised D-dimer (75.0%) and CRP levels (50.0%). Two patients reported presence of antiphospholipid antibodies. Most patients received anticoagulation (91.7%) while overall mortality rate was 45.5%. CONCLUSIONS: The high mortality rate of CVT in COVID-19 infection warrants a high index of suspicion from physicians, and early treatment with anticoagulation should be initiated.