| 1. |
- Nguyen, Thanh N, et al.
(författare)
-
Global Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Stroke Volumes and Cerebrovascular Events: A 1-Year Follow-up.
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Neurology. - 1526-632X. ; 100:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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).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.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.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.This study is registered under NCT04934020.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Campbell, Bruce C V, et al.
(författare)
-
Extending thrombolysis to 4·5-9 h and wake-up stroke using perfusion imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data.
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Lancet (London, England). - 1474-547X. ; 394:10193, s. 139-147
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Stroke thrombolysis with alteplase is currently recommended 0-4·5 h after stroke onset. We aimed to determine whether perfusion imaging can identify patients with salvageable brain tissue with symptoms 4·5 h or more from stroke onset or with symptoms on waking who might benefit from thrombolysis.In this systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data, we searched PubMed for randomised trials published in English between Jan 1, 2006, and March 1, 2019. We also reviewed the reference list of a previous systematic review of thrombolysis and searched ClinicalTrials.gov for interventional studies of ischaemic stroke. Studies of alteplase versus placebo in patients (aged ≥18 years) with ischaemic stroke treated more than 4·5 h after onset, or with wake-up stroke, who were imaged with perfusion-diffusion MRI or CT perfusion were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was excellent functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score 0-1) at 3 months, adjusted for baseline age and clinical severity. Safety outcomes were death and symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage. We calculated odds ratios, adjusted for baseline age and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, using mixed-effects logistic regression models. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42019128036.We identified three trials that met eligibility criteria: EXTEND, ECASS4-EXTEND, and EPITHET. Of the 414 patients included in the three trials, 213 (51%) were assigned to receive alteplase and 201 (49%) were assigned to receive placebo. Overall, 211 patients in the alteplase group and 199 patients in the placebo group had mRS assessment data at 3 months and thus were included in the analysis of the primary outcome. 76 (36%) of 211 patients in the alteplase group and 58 (29%) of 199 patients in the placebo group had achieved excellent functional outcome at 3 months (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·86, 95% CI 1·15-2·99, p=0·011). Symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage was more common in the alteplase group than the placebo group (ten [5%] of 213 patients vs one [<1%] of 201 patients in the placebo group; adjusted OR 9·7, 95% CI 1·23-76·55, p=0·031). 29 (14%) of 213 patients in the alteplase group and 18 (9%) of 201 patients in the placebo group died (adjusted OR 1·55, 0·81-2·96, p=0·66).Patients with ischaemic stroke 4·5-9 h from stroke onset or wake-up stroke with salvageable brain tissue who were treated with alteplase achieved better functional outcomes than did patients given placebo. The rate of symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage was higher with alteplase, but this increase did not negate the overall net benefit of thrombolysis.None.
|
|
| 4. |
- Schönenberger, Silvia, et al.
(författare)
-
Association of General Anesthesia vs Procedural Sedation With Functional Outcome Among Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke Undergoing Thrombectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
- 2019
-
Ingår i: JAMA. - : American Medical Association (AMA). - 1538-3598 .- 0098-7484. ; 322:13, s. 1283-1293
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- General anesthesia during thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke has been associated with poor neurological outcome in nonrandomized studies. Three single-center randomized trials reported no significantly different or improved outcomes for patients who received general anesthesia compared with procedural sedation.To detect differences in functional outcome at 3 months between patients who received general anesthesia vs procedural sedation during thrombectomy for anterior circulation acute ischemic stroke.MEDLINE search for English-language articles published from January 1, 1980, to July 31, 2019.Randomized clinical trials of adults with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of at least 10 and anterior circulation acute ischemic stroke assigned to receive general anesthesia or procedural sedation during thrombectomy.Individual patient data were obtained from 3 single-center, randomized, parallel-group, open-label treatment trials with blinded end point evaluation that met inclusion criteria and were analyzed using fixed-effects meta-analysis.Degree of disability, measured via the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score (range 0-6; lower scores indicate less disability), analyzed with the common odds ratio (cOR) to detect the ordinal shift in the distribution of disability over the range of mRS scores.A total of 368 patients (mean [SD] age, 71.5 [12.9] years; 163 [44.3%] women; median [interquartile range] National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, 17 [14-21]) were included in the analysis, including 183 (49.7%) who received general anesthesia and 185 (50.3%) who received procedural sedation. The mean 3-month mRS score was 2.8 (95% CI, 2.5-3.1) in the general anesthesia group vs 3.2 (95% CI, 3.0-3.5) in the procedural sedation group (difference, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.03-0.83]; cOR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.09-2.29]; P=.02). Among prespecified adverse events, only hypotension (decline in systolic blood pressure of more than 20% from baseline) (80.8% vs 53.1%; OR, 4.26 [95% CI, 2.55-7.09]; P<.001) and blood pressure variability (systolic blood pressure >180 mm Hg or <120 mm Hg) (79.7 vs 62.3%; OR, 2.42 [95% CI, 1.49-3.93]; P<.001) were significantly more common in the general anesthesia group.Among patients with acute ischemic stroke involving the anterior circulation undergoing thrombectomy, the use of protocol-based general anesthesia, compared with procedural sedation, was significantly associated with less disability at 3 months. These findings should be interpreted tentatively, given that the individual trials examined were single-center trials and disability was the primary outcome in only 1 trial.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
