CHARACTERISTICS OF A COVID-19 COHORT WITH LARGE VESSEL OCCLUSION: A MULTICENTER INTERNATIONAL STUDY

Background The mechanisms and outcomes in COVID-19- associated stroke are unique from those of non-COVID-19 stroke. Objectives The purpose of this study is to describe the efficacy and outcomes of acute revascularization of large vessel occlusion (LVO) in the setting of COVID-19 in an international cohort. Methods We conducted an international multicenter retrospective study of consecutively admitted COVID-19 patients with concomitant acute large vessel occlusion (LVO) across 50 comprehensive stroke centers. Our control group constituted historical controls of patients presenting with LVO and receiving a MT between January 2018 to December 2020.Results: The total cohort was 575 patients with acute LVO, 194 had COVID-19 while 381 patients did not. Patients in the COVID-19 group were younger (62.5 vs. 71.2;p<0.001), and lacked vascular risk factors (49, 25.3% vs. 54, 14.2%;p =0.001). mTICI 3 revascularization was less common in the COVID-19 group (74, 39.2% vs. 252, 67.2%;p < 0.001). Poor functional outcome at discharge (defined as mRS 3-6) was more common in the COVID-19 group (150, 79.8% vs.132, 66.7%;p =0.004). COVID-19 was independently associated with a lower likelihood of achieving mTICI 3 (OR: 0.4, 95% CI: 0.2 -0.7;p<0.001), and unfavorable outcomes (OR: 2.5, 95% CI: 1.4 - 4.5;p=0.002). Conclusion COVID-19 was an independent predictor of incomplete revascularization and poor outcomes in patients with stroke due to LVO. COVID-19 patients with LVO patients were younger, had fewer cerebrovascular risk factors, and suffered from higher morbidity/mortality rates. (Figure Presented).

Delaysin thrombolysis during COVID-19 are associated with worse neurological outcomes: the Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology Multicenter Collaboration

Objective: To investigate whether delays in intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) administration during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic for patients with suspected acute ischemic stroke are associated with worse neurologic outcomes. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a deleterious impact on health care systems across the world. Delays in presentation and management of emergent medical conditions like myocardial infarction, and stroke have been reported with a recent multicenter cohort study demonstrating that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to delays in IVT administration. It is unknown if these delays contribute to meaningful differences in short-term outcomes. Design/Methods: This was a nested observational cohort study of adult acute ischemic stroke patients receiving IVT from 9 comprehensive stroke centers in 7 states across the United States. Patients admitted prior to the pandemic (1/1/2019-2/19/2020) were compared to those admitted during the early pandemic (3/1/2020-7/31/2020). The effect of delay in IVT administration on death and discharge destination was estimated using multivariable logistic regression model. Results: There were 676 patients who received IVT with a median age of 70 (IQR 58-81) years and median NIHSS of 8 (IQR 4-16). 313 patients (46.3%) were female. During the early COVID19 period, longer treatment delays were observed (median 46 versus 38 minutes, p=0.01) that were associated with higher in-hospital death or hospice discharge (OR per hour 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.17, p = 0.03). After multivariable adjustment, this effect was strengthened (aOR 1.15, 95% CI 1.07-1.24, p < 0.001). Each hour delay in IVT administration was also associated with 7% lower odds of being discharged home or to a rehabilitation facility (aOR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89-0.97, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Treatment delays observed during the COVID-19 pandemic led to worse shortterm outcomes with higher rates of mortality and hospice care along with lower rates of discharge to home or rehabilitation facility.

Global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on stroke care and intravenous thrombolysis

Objective: The objectives of this study were to measure the global impact of the pandemic on the volumes for intravenous thrombolysis (IVT), IVT transfers, and stroke hospitalizations over 4 months at the height of the pandemic (March 1 to June 30, 2020) compared with two control 4-month periods. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to widespread repercussions on the delivery of health care worldwide. Design/Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, observational, retrospective study across 6 continents, 70 countries, and 457 stroke centers. Diagnoses were identified by ICD-10 codes and/or classifications in stroke center databases. Results: There were 91,373 stroke admissions in the 4 months immediately before compared to 80,894 admissions during the pandemic months, representing an 11.5% (95%CI,-11.7 to-11.3, p<0.0001) decline. There were 13,334 IVT therapies in the 4 months preceding compared to 11,570 procedures during the pandemic, representing a 13.2% (95%CI,-13.8 to-12.7, p<0.0001) drop. Interfacility IVT transfers decreased from 1,337 to 1,178, or an 11.9% decrease (95%CI,-13.7 to-10.3, p=0.001). There were greater declines in primary compared to comprehensive stroke centers (CSC) for stroke hospitalizations (-17.3% vs-10.3%, p<0.0001) and IVT (-15.5% vs-12.6%, p=0.0001). Recovery of stroke hospitalization volume (9.5%, 95%CI 9.2-9.8, p<0.0001) was noted over the two later (May, June) versus the two earlier (March, April) months of the pandemic, with greater recovery in hospitals with lower COVID-19 hospitalization volume, high volume stroke center, and CSC. There was a 1.48% stroke rate across 119,967 COVID-19 hospitalizations. SARS-CoV-2 infection was noted in 3.3% (1,722/52,026) of all stroke admissions. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a global decline in the volume of stroke hospitalizations, IVT, and interfacility IVT transfers. Primary stroke centers and centers with higher COVID19 inpatient volumes experienced steeper declines. Recovery of stroke hospitalization was noted in the later pandemic months, with greater recovery in hospitals with lower COVID-19 hospitalizations, high volume stroke centers, and CSCs.

Using telemedicine eliminates the weekend/after-hours effect in acute ischemic stroke patients receiving thrombolysis during a deadly pandemic

Stroke care has been shown to be worse for patients presenting overnight/weekends (off-hours) to centers compare to those presenting during business hours (on-hours).Telemedicine (TM) helps provide safe management of stroke patients. The UT Teleneurology (UTT) hub provides acute neurological coverage by stroke specialists to 18 spoke centers. To our knowledge, the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on the “weekend effect” has not been studied. The objective is to compare TM consult volumes and time metrics of stroke patients who received tPA via TM off-hours with those on-hours during the pandemic. In a retrospective query of the UTT registry from 3/20 - 6/20, we identified 122 stroke patients who received tPA - 109 were included in our analysis - 2 were excluded after quality check, 11 were excluded as inpatient strokes. We compared baseline characteristics and time metrics between the off-hours (5pm-7:59am, weekends) and on-hours (weekdays 8am-4:59pm) patients (Table 1). We also compared the number of TM consults between the height of the pandemic (3/20 - 6/20) and the previous year (3/19 - 6/19). Of 109 patients, 72 were managed via TM during off-hours, 37 during on-hours. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. There were no differences in time metrics including door to needle time. Of note, there was no difference in the number of acute TM consults or patients receiving tPA. There were fewer routine TM consults during the pandemic, and a trend toward fewer phone consults. There was no difference in time metrics between the patients treated off-hours vs on-hours in the pandemic period. TM may be advantageous over in-person neurology coverage during crises, and is consistent regardless of the hour/day. Contrary to other studies, the number of acute TM consults and patients receiving tPA did not differ between the study periods. Routine consults decreased during the pandemic - perhaps coinciding with state closure mandates/fewer hospitalized stroke patients. (Figure Presented).

Preserved acute stroke volumes and treatment metrics during the COVID 19 pandemic

Stroke is a devastating disease with high morbidity/mortality. Many studies have shown lower stroke volumes during the Covid 19 pandemic, with possible causes including fear of contracting the virus, limited hospital capacity, etc. Telemedicine (TM) helps provide safe management of stroke patients, and may be advantageous to in-person coverage during crises. The UT Teleneurology (UTT) hub provides acute neurological coverage by stroke specialists to 18 spoke centers. The impact of the pandemic on acute stroke volumes and care is ongoing and its effects should be studied further. The purpose of this study is to compare TM acute stroke volumes and time metrics between the Covid 19 era (March-June 2020) and the previous year (March-June 2019). In a retrospective query of the UTT registry from 3/19 - 6/19 and 3/20 - 6/20, we identified 294 stroke patients who received tPA - 273 were included in our analysis - 4 were excluded after quality check, 17 were excluded as inpatient strokes. We compared baseline and clinical characteristics, volumes, and time metrics between the periods (table 1). Of the 273 patients, 172 received tPA via TM during the 2019 period and 109 received tPA via TM during the 2020 period. Baseline and clinical characteristics were similar between the groups except for race. Of note, there were no differences in acute TM volumes or the number of patients receiving tPA. There was no difference in most metrics, including door to needle time. During the pandemic, camera to needle time was longer (3 minutes), and there was a trend towards longer last well to door time. There were no differences in the volume of acute TM consults, the number of patients receiving tPA, or door to needle time between the pandemic period and the previous year. Camera to needle time was slightly longer during the pandemic, perhaps representing more demands on hospital staff. The trend towards longer last well to door time could be due to public fear of presenting to the hospital during a deadly pandemic. (Figure Presented).

Decline in mild stroke presentations and intravenous thrombolysis during the COVID-19 pandemic: the society of vascular and interventional neurology registry

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.

Cerebrovascular events and outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: the society of vascular and interventional neurology multinational registry

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.

Acute stroke care during the COVID-19 pandemic: the society of vascular and interventional neurology collaboration

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.