ABSTRACT
Purpose: Insufficient data exist regarding the benefit of long-term antiplatelet vs. anticoagulant therapy in the prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke in patients with ischemic stroke and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Therefore, this study aimed to compare longitudinal outcomes associated with antiplatelet vs. anticoagulant use in a cohort of patients with stroke and with an ejection fraction of ≤40%. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed single-center registry data (2015-2021) of patients with ischemic stroke, HFrEF, and sinus rhythm. Time to the primary outcome of recurrent ischemic stroke, major bleeding, or death was assessed using the adjusted Cox proportional hazards model and was compared between patients treated using anticoagulation (±antiplatelet) vs. antiplatelet therapy alone after propensity score matching using an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach, with adjustment for residual measurable confounders. Sensitivity analyses included the multivariable Cox proportional hazards model using ITT and as-treated approaches without propensity score matching. Results: Of 2,974 screened patients, 217 were included in the secondary analyses, with 130 patients matched according to the propensity score for receiving anticoagulation treatment for the primary analysis, spanning 143 patient-years of follow-up. After propensity score matching, there was no significant association between anticoagulation and the primary outcome [hazard ratio (HR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56-2.17]. Non-White race (HR 2.26, 95% CI: 1.16-4.41) and the presence of intracranial occlusion (HR 2.86, 95% CI: 1.40-5.83) were independently associated with the primary outcome, while hypertension was inversely associated (HR 0.42, 95% CI: 0.21-0.84). There remained no significant association between anticoagulation and the primary outcome in sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: In HFrEF patients with an acute stroke, there was no difference in outcomes of antithrombotic strategies. While this study was limited by non-randomized treatment allocation, the results support future trials of stroke patients with HFrEF which may randomize patients to anticoagulation or antiplatelet.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To characterize differences in disposition arrangement among rehab-eligible stroke patients at a Comprehensive Stroke Center before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a prospective registry for demographics, hospital course, and discharge dispositions of rehab-eligible acute stroke survivors admitted 6 months prior to (10/2019-03/2020) and during (04/2020-09/2020) the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary outcome was discharge to an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) as opposed to other facilities using descriptive statistics, and IRF versus home using unadjusted and adjusted backward stepwise logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 507 rehab-eligible stroke survivors, there was no difference in age, premorbid disability, or stroke severity between study periods (p>0.05). There was a 9% absolute decrease in discharges to an IRF during the pandemic (32.1% vs. 41.1%, p=0.04), which translated to 38% lower odds of being discharged to IRF versus home in unadjusted regression (OR 0.62, 95%CI 0.42-0.92, p=0.016). The lower odds of discharge to IRF persisted in the multivariable model (aOR 0.16, 95%CI 0.09-0.31, p<0.001) despite a significant increase in discharge disability (median discharge mRS 4 [IQR 2-4] vs. 2 [IQR 1-3], p<0.001) during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Admission for stroke during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significantly lower probability of being discharged to an IRF. This effect persisted despite adjustment for predictors of IRF disposition, including functional disability at discharge. Potential reasons for this disparity are explored.
