| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- 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.
|
|
| 5. |
- Escudero-Martinez, I, et al.
(författare)
-
Dabigatran initiation in patients with non-valvular AF and first acute ischaemic stroke: a retrospective observational study from the SITS registry
- 2020
-
Ingår i: BMJ open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 10:5, s. e037234-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The optimal timing for initiation of dabigatran after acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) is not established. We aimed to evaluate initiation timing and clinical outcomes of dabigatran in AIS patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF).DesignRetrospective study based on prospectively collected data in SITS (Safe Implementation of Treatment in Stroke) Thrombolysis and Thrombectomy Registry from July 2014 to July 2018.ParticipantsEuropean NVAF patients (≥18 years) hospitalised after first-ever ischaemic stroke.SettingA multinational, observational monitoring register.InterventionDabigatran initiation within 3 months after the ischaemic stroke.Primary and secondary outcomesThe primary outcome was time from first-ever ischaemic stroke (index event) to dabigatran initiation. Additional outcomes included physicians’ reasons for delaying dabigatran initiation beyond acute hospital discharge and outcomes within 3 months of index event.MethodsWe identified patients with NVAF who received dabigatran within 3 months of the index event. We performed descriptive statistics for baseline and demographic data and clinical outcomes after dabigatran initiation.ResultsIn total, 1489 patients with NVAF received dabigatran after AIS treated with thrombolysis and/or thrombectomy. Of these, 1240 had available initiation time. At baseline, median age was 75 years; 53% of patients were women, 15% were receiving an oral anticoagulant, 29% acetylsalicylic acid and 4% clopidogrel. Most patients (82%) initiated dabigatran within 14 days after the index event. Patients initiating earlier had lower stroke severity from median NIHSS 8 (IQR 6–13) if initiated within 7 days to NIHSS 15 (9–19) if initiated between 28 days and 3 months. Most common reasons for delaying initiation were haemorrhagic transformation or intracranial haemorrhage, stroke severity and infarct size. Few thrombotic/haemorrhagic events occurred within 3 months after the index event (20 of 926 patients, 2.2% with the available data).ConclusionsOur findings, together with previous observational studies, indicate that dabigatran initiated within the first days after an AIS is safe in patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis, endovascular thrombectomy or both.Trial registration numberSITS Thrombolysis and Thrombectomy Registry (NCT03258645).
|
|
| 6. |
- Riggs, E, et al.
(författare)
-
Group Pregnancy Care for refugee background women: a codesigned, multimethod evaluation protocol applying a community engagement framework and an interrupted time series design
- 2021
-
Ingår i: BMJ open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 11:7, s. e048271-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Pregnancy and early parenthood are key opportunities for interaction with health services and connecting to other families at the same life stage. Public antenatal care should be accessible to all, however barriers persist for families from refugee communities to access, navigate and optimise healthcare during pregnancy. Group Pregnancy Care is an innovative model of care codesigned with a community from a refugee background and other key stakeholders in Melbourne, Australia. Group Pregnancy Care aims to provide a culturally safe and supportive environment for women to participate in antenatal care in a language they understand, to improve health literacy and promote social connections and inclusion. This paper outlines Froup Pregnancy Care and provides details of the evaluation framework.Methods and analysisThe evaluation uses community-based participatory research methods to engage stakeholders in codesign of evaluation methods. The study is being conducted across multiple sites and involves multiple phases, use of quantitative and qualitative methods, and an interrupted time series design. Process and cost-effectiveness measures will be incorporated into quality improvement cycles. Evaluation measures will be developed using codesign and participatory principles informed by community and stakeholder engagement and will be piloted prior to implementation.Ethics and disseminationEthics approvals have been provided by all six relevant authorities. Study findings will be shared with communities and stakeholders via agreed pathways including community forums, partnership meetings, conferences, policy and practice briefs and journal articles. Dissemination activities will be developed using codesign and participatory principles.
|
|
