Drip and ship and mothership models of mechanical thrombectomy result in similar outcomes in acute ischemic stroke of the anterior circulation.

BACKGROUND: Stroke therapy has been transformed in recent years due to the availability of thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy (MT). Whether transferring the patient directly to a comprehensive stroke center (CSC, mothership model) is better than taking them to a primary stroke center (PSC) and then to a CSC for MT (drip and ship) is unclear but has important implications. We compared the performance of both models in a district of the Basque country, Spain. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of all acute ischemic stroke patients consecutively admitted to the Neurology Department of two institutions and eligible for MT over a 36-month period with anterior circulation large vessel occlusion (LVO). One center applied the mothership model and the other the drip-and-ship. The two models were compared in terms of mortality and functional status assessed by modified Rankin (mRS) scale at 90 days. As a surrogate of the effectiveness of the two models, all times pertinent to stroke therapy were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 187 patients were evaluated subjected to MT with the drip-and-ship model and 188 with mothership, with a median NIHSS of 15. Prior to MT, 17% of the drip-and-ship patients received thrombolysis and 26% in the mothership. Neither mortality rate nor mRS showed statistically significant differences 90 days after stroke. The time lapse from stroke to MT was optimal in both models; albeit being 10 minutes longer in the drip-and-ship model, it had no impact on patients' outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Drip-and-ship and mothership models can provide optimal and similar results in acute stroke patients in terms of mortality and functional status at 90 days. Their coexistence may alleviate the burden of CSC thus facilitating the access of more stroke patients to advanced therapies in an equitable manner.

Neurological reasons for consultation and hospitalization during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 disease affects the nervous system and led to an increase in neurological consults for patients at admission and through the period of hospitalization during the peak of the pandemic. METHODS: Patients with clinical and laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 that required a neurologic consultation or those who presented with neurological problems on admission that led to a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection during a 2-month period at the peak of the pandemic were included in this study. Demographic and clinical variables were analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were included. The presenting neurologic manifestations on admission led to the diagnosis of COVID-19 in 14 patients (40%). The most common reasons for consultation during the hospitalization period were stroke (11), encephalopathy (7), seizures (6), and neuropathies (5) followed by a miscellaneous of syncope (2), migraine (1), anosmia (1), critical illness myopathy (1), and exacerbation of residual dysarthria (1). The most common neurological disturbances were associated with severe disease except for neuropathies. Patients with encephalopathies and seizures had markedly increased D-dimer and ferritin values, even higher than stroke patients. RT-PCR was performed in 8 CSF samples and was negative in all of them. CONCLUSION: Neurological disturbances represent a significant and severe burden in COVID-19 patients, and they can be the presenting condition that leads to the diagnosis of the viral infection in a high percentage of patients. Evidence of direct viral mechanisms was scarce, but the pathogenesis of the diverse manifestations remains enigmatic.