Quality-of-life, concerns, and treatment priorities in patients with cancer-related ischemic stroke: A prospective survey study.

OBJECTIVES: Comorbid cancer with stroke is a complex situation with multiple factors affecting quality of life (QoL). No specific questionnaire exists to assess current drivers of QoL and future concerns and priorities in patients with cancer-related stroke. METHODS: After developing a structured survey instrument, we prospectively interviewed patients with recent ischemic stroke and active cancer to assess views about their condition, factors currently impacting QoL, concerns for the future, and preferences regarding antithrombotic treatment strategy. RESULTS: In 2021-2022, at two quaternary-care stroke and cancer centers, we surveyed 50 patients with cancer-related stroke (mean age 70 years, 42% women). Most (87%) had solid cancers with lung, prostate, and breast cancers being the most prevalent. The most frequent adverse feelings were sadness and anxiety about another stroke. Disability from stroke, pain from cancer, and dependency were the items rated to have the highest current effect on patients' QoL and were ranked as the number one effector on QoL in 25%, 23%, and 16% of surveys, respectively; bleeding was ranked the lowest. Cognitive/memory impairment (ranked first in 28% of surveys), dependency on others (ranked first in 18%), and speech disturbance (ranked first in 16%) were the highest ranked future concerns; bleeding and pain were ranked the lowest. When questioned about antithrombotic treatment preferences to prevent further stroke, 50% favored a more aggressive approach with anticoagulant therapy, 16% favored a less aggressive approach with antiplatelet therapy, and 34% were neutral/unsure. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cancer-related stroke reported that stroke disability and cancer pain were their most impactful current issues, while long-term cognitive impairment, functional dependence, and speech disturbance were their most important future concerns. These patients seemed to be more concerned about future stroke than bleeding events and tended to prefer a more aggressive antithrombotic strategy, although considerable variability existed.

Reliability of Past Medical History in a Single Hospital Participating in Get With The Guidelines-Stroke Registry.

Background The GWTG (Get With The Guidelines)-Stroke registry supports clinical research and quality improvement projects that often rely on past medical history elements, the reliability of which remains largely unknown. Here, we evaluated the reliability of specific past medical history elements in a local GWTG-Stroke data set, with particular attention to calculating the CHA2DS2-VASc score. Methods and Results A single-center cohort was identified by querying the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania's GWTG IQVIA Registry Platform for patients admitted with acute ischemic stroke between January 2017 and December 2020, with a previously known history of atrial fibrillation. Demographics and previously known medical history elements were retrieved from the registry to calculate the CHA2DS2-VASc score. Five neurologists abstracted the same medical history elements from the health records. The κ statistics quantified the reliability of medical history elements and CHA2DS2-VASc score. Four hundred fifty-three patients with acute ischemic stroke and previously known atrial fibrillation were included in the cohort. In comparison with manual reabstraction, registry-based medical history elements were only moderately reliable: congestive heart failure (κ=0.53), hypertension (κ=0.42), diabetes (κ=0.80), prior stroke (κ=0.45), and vascular disease (κ=0.48). However, leveraging these variables to calculate the CHA2DS2-VASc score was more reliable (κ=0.73). Conclusions Previously known medical history elements in the GWTG-Stroke registry were only modestly reliable in this single-center study, suggesting caution should be exercised when relying on any individual history elements in registry-based research. Combining these variables to calculate the CHA2DS2-VASc score was somewhat more reliable. Multicenter data are needed before assuming generalizability.

In-Hospital Outcomes and Recurrence of Acute Ischemic Stroke in Patients With Solid Organ Malignancy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of solid organ malignancies on the in-hospital outcomes and recurrent strokes among patients hospitalized with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). METHODS: Adult hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis of AIS were identified from the Nationwide Readmissions Database 2016-2018. Logistic regression was used to compare the differences in the utilization of acute stroke interventions and clinical outcomes in patients with and without malignancy. Survival analysis was used to evaluate the risk of readmission due to recurrent stroke after discharge. RESULTS: There were 1385840 hospitalizations due to AIS (mean±SD age 70.4±14.0 years, female 50.2%). Of these, 50553 (3.7%) had a concurrent diagnosis of solid organ malignancy. The five most common malignancies included lung cancer (24.6%), prostate cancer (13.2%), breast cancer (9.3%), pancreatic cancer (6.5%), and colorectal cancer (6.2%). After adjustment for baseline differences, patients with malignancy were more likely to have intraparenchymal hemorrhage (IPH) [odds ratio (OR): 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.04-1.19], in-hospital mortality (OR: 2.15, 95% CI: 2.04-2.28), and discharge disposition other than to home (OR: 1.70, 95% CI: 1.64-1.75). Patients with malignancy were less likely to receive intravenous thrombolysis (tPA) and were more likely to undergo mechanical thrombectomy (MT). Among the subgroups of patients treated with tPA or MT, the outcomes were comparable between patients with and without malignancy, except patients with lung cancer remained at a higher risk of mortality and adverse disposition despite these acute stroke interventions. Patients with malignancy were at a higher risk of readmission due to recurrent AIS within 1 year of discharge (hazards ratio: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.11-1.25), and this risk was specifically driven by the lung and pancreatic cancers. CONCLUSION: While patients with malignancy generally have worse in-hospital outcomes as compared to those without, there is considerable variation in these outcomes according to the different cancer types and the use of acute stroke interventions. The use of tPA and MT is generally safe for eligible patients with an underlying malignancy. Patients with lung and pancreatic cancers have a higher early risk of recurrent stroke and might need more intensive surveillance and careful institution of the optimal secondary prevention measures.

Highly Visible Wall-Timer to Reduce Endovascular Treatment Time for Stroke.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke has revolutionized clinical care for patients with stroke and large vessel occlusion, but treatment remains time sensitive. At our stroke center, up to half of the door-to-groin time is accounted for after the patient arrives in the angio-suite. Here, we apply the concept of a highly visible timer in the angio-suite to quantify the impact on endovascular treatment time. METHODS: This was a single-center prospective pseudorandomized study conducted over a 32-week period. Pseudorandomization was achieved by turning the timer on and off in 2-week intervals. The primary outcome was angio-suite-to-groin time, and secondary outcomes were angio-suite-to-intubation time, groin-to-recanalization time, and 90-day modified Rankin scale. A stratified analysis was performed based on type of anesthesia (ie, endotracheal intubation versus not). RESULTS: During the 32-week study period, 97 mechanical thrombectomies were performed. The timer was on and off for 38 and 59 cases, respectively. The timer resulted in faster angio-suite-to-groin time (28 versus 33 minutes; P=0.02). The 5-minute reduction in angio-suite-to-groin was maintained after adjusting for intubation status in a multivariate regression (P=0.02). There was no difference in the 90-day modified Rankin scale between groups. The timer impact was consistent across the 32-week study period. CONCLUSIONS: A highly visible timer in the angio-suite achieved a meaningful, albeit modest, reduction in endovascular treatment time for patients with stroke. Given the lack of risk and low cost, it is reasonable for stroke centers to consider a highly visible timer in the angio-suite to improve treatment times.

Chronic Kidney Disease is A Biomarker Rather Than A Risk Factor for Stroke.

BACKGROUND: Over the last approximate 15 years some have suggested that chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a risk factor for stroke in and of itself. The assertion that CKD is a risk factor for stroke requires more scrutiny. It is possible that CKD is a reflection of severity of conditions such as hypertension and diabetes that are themselves among the most treatable risk factors for stroke or it is possible that the effects of CKD change vascular and related physiological functions and therefor directly contribute to increased risk of stroke and it is also possible that treatments for advance CKD such has hemodialysis could contribute to increased risk of stroke as secondary effects of the treatment methods. To addresses these issues as participant in the Brain & Kidney Conference 2020 debate on this issue we were assigned the task of arguing that "Resolved: CKD is not a risk factor for stroke". METHODS: We performed a structured literature review in Pub Med of the currently generally accepted recognized risk factors for stroke as well as publications relating CKD and risk of stroke. RESULTS: We found that CKD and stroke is highly confounded by the cause of CKD such that the highest incidence of stroke happens in persons whose CKD is related to HTN and diabetes mellitus. Non-vascular causes of CKD have a much lower stroke incidence than those with vascular causes of CKD. When the major clinical risk factors are controlled for the relative risk of stroke drops dramatically by more than 35% to an odds ratio of only 1.1. We also found that in large population studies looking at the potential benefits of addressing treatable risk factors for stroke to reduce the incidence of stroke, CKD was either not mentioned or had a low contribution margin for treatment benefit. CONCLUSIONS: In general CKD is not a major risk factor for stroke but we argue that it is a biomarker of severity of vascular injury especially among individuals with hypertension and diabetes mellitus. Techniques for managing CKD such as hemodialysis may be related to increased risk of stroke and the contribution of CKD to intracerebral hemorrhage and brain microhemorrhages deserves more study and these were not addressed in detail in this debate.