Characteristics of a COVID-19 Cohort With Large Vessel Occlusion: A Multicenter International Study.

BACKGROUND: The mechanisms and outcomes in coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-associated stroke are unique from those of non-COVID-19 stroke. OBJECTIVE: 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 patients with COVID-19 with concomitant acute LVO across 50 comprehensive stroke centers. Our control group constituted historical controls of patients presenting with LVO and receiving a mechanical thrombectomy between January 2018 and December 2020. RESULTS: The total cohort was 575 patients with acute LVO; 194 patients had COVID-19 while 381 patients did not. Patients in the COVID-19 group were younger (62.5 vs 71.2; P < .001) and lacked vascular risk factors (49, 25.3% vs 54, 14.2%; P = .001). Modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 3 revascularization was less common in the COVID-19 group (74, 39.2% vs 252, 67.2%; P < .001). Poor functional outcome at discharge (defined as modified Ranklin Scale 3-6) was more common in the COVID-19 group (150, 79.8% vs 132, 66.7%; P = .004). COVID-19 was independently associated with a lower likelihood of achieving modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 3 (odds ratio [OR]: 0.4, 95% CI: 0.2-0.7; P < .001) and unfavorable outcomes (OR: 2.5, 95% CI: 1.4-4.5; P = .002). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 was an independent predictor of incomplete revascularization and poor outcomes in patients with stroke due to LVO. Patients with COVID-19 with LVO were younger, had fewer cerebrovascular risk factors, and suffered from higher morbidity/mortality rates.

Endovascular thrombectomy time metrics in the era of COVID-19: observations from the Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology Multicenter Collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Unprecedented workflow shifts during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have contributed to delays in acute care delivery, but whether it adversely affected endovascular thrombectomy metrics in acute large vessel occlusion (LVO) is unknown. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of observational data from 14 comprehensive stroke centers in nine US states with acute LVO. EVT metrics were compared between March to July 2019 against March to July 2020 (primary analysis), and between state-specific pre-peak and peak COVID-19 months (secondary analysis), with multivariable adjustment. RESULTS: Of the 1364 patients included in the primary analysis (51% female, median NIHSS 14 [IQR 7-21], and 74% of whom underwent EVT), there was no difference in the primary outcome of door-to-puncture (DTP) time between the 2019 control period and the COVID-19 period (median 71 vs 67 min, P=0.10). After adjustment for variables associated with faster DTP, and clustering by site, there remained a trend toward shorter DTP during the pandemic (ßadj=-73.2, 95% CI -153.8-7.4, Pp=0.07). There was no difference in DTP times according to local COVID-19 peaks vs pre-peak months in unadjusted or adjusted multivariable regression (ßadj=-3.85, 95% CI -36.9-29.2, P=0.80). In this final multivariable model (secondary analysis), faster DTP times were significantly associated with transfer from an outside institution (ßadj=-46.44, 95% CI -62.8 to - -30.0, P<0.01) and higher NIHSS (ßadj=-2.15, 95% CI -4.2to - -0.1, P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-center study, there was no delay in EVT among patients treated for intracranial occlusion during the COVID-19 era compared with the pre-COVID era.

Efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine clinical outcomes associated with convalescent plasma therapy in COVID-19 patients. We performed a literature search on PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify studies published up to December 10th, 2020 that examined the efficacy of convalescent plasma treatment for COVID-19. The primary endpoints were mortality, clinical improvement, and hospital length of stay. We screened 859 studies that met the search criteria, performed full-text reviews of 56 articles, and identified 15 articles that fulfilled inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. The odds of mortality were significantly lower in the convalescent plasma group compared to the control group (OR = 0.59 [95% CI = 0.44; 0.78], P < .001), although results from two key randomized controlled trials did not support the mortality benefit. The odds of clinical improvement were significantly higher in the convalescent plasma group compared to the control group (OR = 2.02 [95% CI = 1.54; 2.65], P < .001). There was no difference in hospital length of stay between the convalescent plasma group and the control group (MD = -0.49 days [95% CI = -3.11; 2.12], P = .713). In all, these data indicate that a mortality benefit with convalescent plasma is unclear, although there remain benefits with convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19.

Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Treatment Times for Acute Ischemic Stroke: The Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology Multicenter Collaboration.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to an unprecedented paradigm shift in medical care. We sought to evaluate whether the COVID-19 pandemic may have contributed to delays in acute stroke management at comprehensive stroke centers. METHODS: Pooled clinical data of consecutive adult stroke patients from 14 US comprehensive stroke centers (January 1, 2019, to July 31, 2020) were queried. The rate of thrombolysis for nontransferred patients within the Target: Stroke goal of 60 minutes was compared between patients admitted from March 1, 2019, and July 31, 2019 (pre-COVID-19), and March 1, 2020, to July 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 2955 patients who met inclusion criteria, 1491 were admitted during the pre-COVID-19 period and 1464 were admitted during COVID-19, 15% of whom underwent intravenous thrombolysis. Patients treated during COVID-19 were at lower odds of receiving thrombolysis within 60 minutes of arrival (odds ratio, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.38-0.98]; P=0.04), with a median delay in door-to-needle time of 4 minutes (P=0.03). The lower odds of achieving treatment in the Target: Stroke goal persisted after adjustment for all variables associated with earlier treatment (adjusted odds ratio, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.35-0.85]; P<0.01). The delay in thrombolysis appeared driven by the longer delay from imaging to bolus (median, 29 [interquartile range, 18-41] versus 22 [interquartile range, 13-37] minutes; P=0.02). There was no significant delay in door-to-groin puncture for patients who underwent thrombectomy (median, 83 [interquartile range, 63-133] versus 90 [interquartile range, 73-129] minutes; P=0.30). Delays in thrombolysis were observed in the months of June and July. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation for acute ischemic stroke during the COVID-19 period was associated with a small but significant delay in intravenous thrombolysis but no significant delay in thrombectomy time metrics. Taking steps to reduce delays from imaging to bolus time has the potential to attenuate this collateral effect of the pandemic.

The professional and personal impact of the coronavirus pandemic on US neurointerventional practices: a nationwide survey.

BACKGROUND: Little is currently known about the effects of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on neurointerventional (NI) procedural volumes or its toll on physician wellness. METHODS: A 37-question online survey was designed and distributed to physician members of three NI physician organizations. RESULTS: A total of 151 individual survey responses were obtained. Reduced mechanical thrombectomy procedures compared with pre-pandemic were observed with 32% reporting a greater than 50% reduction in thrombectomy volumes. In concert with most (76%) reporting at least a 25% reduction in non-mechanical thrombectomy urgent NI procedures and a nearly unanimous (96%) cessation of non-urgent elective cases, 68% of physicians reported dramatic reductions (>50%) in overall NI procedural volume compared with pre-pandemic. Increased door-to-puncture times were reported by 79%. COVID-19-positive infections occurred in 1% of physician respondents: an additional 8% quarantined for suspected infection. Sixty-six percent of respondents reported increased career stress, 56% increased personal life/family stress, and 35% increased career burnout. Stress was significantly increased in physicians with COVID-positive family members (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study designed to understand the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on NI physician practices, case volumes, compensation, personal/family stresses, and work-related burnout. Future studies examining these factors following the resumption of elective cases and relaxing of social distancing measures will be necessary to better understand these phenomena.

Neuroendovascular clinical trials disruptions due to COVID-19. Potential future challenges and opportunities.

To assess the impact of COVID-19 on neurovascular research and deal with the challenges imposed by the pandemic. METHODS: A survey-based study focused on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and single-arm studies for acute ischemic stroke and cerebral aneurysms was developed by a group of senior neurointerventionalists and sent to sites identified through the clinical trials website (https://clinicaltrials.gov/), study sponsors, and physician investigators. RESULTS: The survey was sent to 101 institutions, with 65 responding (64%). Stroke RCTs were being conducted at 40 (62%) sites, aneurysm RCTs at 22 (34%) sites, stroke single-arm studies at 37 (57%) sites, and aneurysm single-arm studies at 43 (66%) sites. Following COVID-19, enrollment was suspended at 51 (78%) sites-completely at 21 (32%) and partially at 30 (46%) sites. Missed trial-related clinics and imaging follow-ups and protocol deviations were reported by 27 (42%), 24 (37%), and 27 (42%) sites, respectively. Negative reimbursements were reported at 17 (26%) sites. The majority of sites, 49 (75%), had put new trials on hold. Of the coordinators, 41 (63%) worked from home and 20 (31%) reported a personal financial impact. Remote consent was possible for some studies at 34 (52%) sites and for all studies at 5 (8%) sites. At sites with suspended trials (n=51), endovascular treatment without enrollment occurred at 31 (61%) sites for stroke and 23 (45%) sites for aneurysms. A total of 277 patients with acute ischemic stroke and 184 with cerebral aneurysms were treated without consideration for trial enrollment. CONCLUSION: Widespread disruption of neuroendovascular trials occurred because of COVID-19. As sites resume clinical research, steps to mitigate similar challenges in the future should be considered.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 and the Cerebrovascular-Cardiovascular Systems: What Do We Know So Far?

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic of 2019 to 2020 has resulted in multiple hospitalizations, deaths, and economic hardships worldwide. Although respiratory involvement in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is well known, the potential cardiovascular and cerebrovascular manifestations are less understood. We performed a PubMed and Google Scholar search and reviewed relevant literature on COVID-19 and cardiovascular system involvement. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 possesses high affinity for angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor, which is highly concentrated in the lungs and cardiovascular tissue, thereby provoking concern for cardiovascular involvement in COVID-19 cases. Preexisting cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease has been shown in previous reports to be a risk factor for severe infection. On the basis of our review of published studies, COVID-19 patients may be more likely to experience acute cardiac injury, arrhythmia, coagulation defects, and acute stroke and are likely to have poorer outcomes as a result. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, more data about potential cardiovascular and cerebrovascular manifestations of the disease are required.