ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Declines in stroke admission, IV thrombolysis (IVT), and mechanical thrombectomy volumes were reported during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is a paucity of data on the longer-term effect of the pandemic on stroke volumes over the course of a year and through the second wave of the pandemic. We sought to measure the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the volumes of stroke admissions, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), IVT, and mechanical thrombectomy over a 1-year period at the onset of the pandemic (March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021) compared with the immediately preceding year (March 1, 2019, to February 29, 2020). METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal retrospective study across 6 continents, 56 countries, and 275 stroke centers. We collected volume data for COVID-19 admissions and 4 stroke metrics: ischemic stroke admissions, ICH admissions, IVT treatments, and mechanical thrombectomy procedures. Diagnoses were identified by their ICD-10 codes or classifications in stroke databases. RESULTS: There were 148,895 stroke admissions in the 1 year immediately before compared with 138,453 admissions during the 1-year pandemic, representing a 7% decline (95% CI [95% CI 7.1-6.9]; p < 0.0001). ICH volumes declined from 29,585 to 28,156 (4.8% [5.1-4.6]; p < 0.0001) and IVT volume from 24,584 to 23,077 (6.1% [6.4-5.8]; p < 0.0001). Larger declines were observed at high-volume compared with low-volume centers (all p < 0.0001). There was no significant change in mechanical thrombectomy volumes (0.7% [0.6-0.9]; p = 0.49). Stroke was diagnosed in 1.3% [1.31-1.38] of 406,792 COVID-19 hospitalizations. SARS-CoV-2 infection was present in 2.9% ([2.82-2.97], 5,656/195,539) of all stroke hospitalizations. DISCUSSION: There was a global decline and shift to lower-volume centers of stroke admission volumes, ICH volumes, and IVT volumes during the 1st year of the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the prior year. Mechanical thrombectomy volumes were preserved. These results suggest preservation in the stroke care of higher severity of disease through the first pandemic year. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: This study is registered under NCT04934020.
Subject(s)
Brain Ischemia , COVID-19 , Stroke , Humans , Brain Ischemia/therapy , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Follow-Up Studies , Intracranial Hemorrhages , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Stroke/epidemiology , Stroke/therapy , Stroke/diagnosis , Stroke Volume , Thrombectomy , Thrombolytic Therapy/methods , Treatment OutcomeSubject(s)
Aortic Valve Stenosis , Embolic Protection Devices , Intracranial Embolism , Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement , Humans , Feasibility Studies , Aortic Valve Stenosis/surgery , Treatment Outcome , Aortic Valve/surgery , Intracranial Embolism/etiology , Intracranial Embolism/prevention & control , Risk Factors , Prosthesis DesignABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The cerebral embolic protection (CEP) device captures embolic debris during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, the impact of CEP on stroke severity following TAVR remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to examine whether CEP was associated with reduced severity of stroke following TAVR. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 2839 consecutive patients (mean age: 79.2 ± 9.5 years, females: 41.5%) who underwent transfemoral TAVR at our institution between 2013 and 2020. We categorized patients into Sentinel CEP users and nonusers. Neuroimaging data were reviewed and the final diagnosis of a cerebrovascular event was adjudicated by a neurologist blinded to the CEP use or nonuse. We compared the incidence and severity (assessed by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS]) of stroke through 72 h post-TAVR or discharge between the two groups using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) of propensity scores. RESULTS: Of the eligible patients, 1802 (63.5%) received CEP during TAVR and 1037 (36.5%) did not. After adjustment for patient characteristics by stabilized IPTW, the rate of overall stroke was numerically lower in CEP users than in CEP nonusers, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (0.49% vs. 1.18%, p = 0.064). However, CEP users had significantly lower rates of moderate-or-severe stroke (NIHSS ≥ 6: 0.11% vs. 0.69%, p = 0.013) and severe stroke (NIHSS ≥ 15: 0% vs. 0.29%, p = 0.046). Stroke following CEP use (n = 8), compared with stroke following CEP nonuse (n = 15), tended to carry a lower NIHSS (median [IQR], 4.0 [2.0-7.0] vs. 7.0 [4.5-19.0], p = 0.087). Four (26.7%) out of 15 patients with stroke following CEP nonuse died within 30 days, with no death after stroke following CEP use. CONCLUSIONS: CEP use may be associated with attenuated severity of stroke despite no significant difference in overall stroke incidence compared with CEP nonuse. This finding is considered hypothesis-generating and needs to be confirmed in large prospective studies.
