The Role of Vascular Imaging atReferral Centers in the Drip and Ship Paradigm.

BACKGROUND: In drip-and-ship protocols, non-invasive vascular imaging (NIVI) at Referral Centers (RC), although recommended, is not consistently performed and its value is uncertain. We evaluated the role of NIVI at RC, comparing patients with (VI+) and without (VI-) vascular imaging in several outcomes. METHODS: Observational, multicenter study from a prospective government-mandated population-based registry of code stroke patients. We selected acute ischemic stroke patients, initially assessed at RC from January-2016 to June-2020. We compared and analyzed the rates of patients transferred to a Comprehensive Stroke Center (CSC) for Endovascular Treatment (EVT), rates of EVT and workflow times between VI+ and VI- patients. RESULTS: From 5128 ischemic code stroke patients admitted at RC; 3067 (59.8%) were VI+, 1822 (35.5%) were secondarily transferred to a CSC and 600 (11.7%) received EVT. Among all patients with severe stroke (NIHSS ≥16) at RC, a multivariate analysis showed that lower age, thrombolytic treatment, and VI+ (OR:1.479, CI95%: 1.117-1.960, p=0.006) were independent factors associated to EVT. The rate of secondary transfer to a CSC was lower in VI+ group (24.6% vs. 51.6%, p<0.001). Among transferred patients, EVT was more frequent in VI+ than VI- (48.6% vs. 21.7%, p<0.001). Interval times as door-in door-out (median-minutes 83.5 vs. 82, p= 0.13) and RC-Door to puncture (median-minutes 189 vs. 178, p= 0.47) did not show differences between both groups. CONCLUSION: In the present study, NIVI at RC improves selection for EVT, and is associated with receiving EVT in severe stroke patients. Time-metrics related to drip-and-ship model were not affected by NIVI.

[Prognostic implications of myocardial injury in patients with and without COVID-19 infection treated in a university hospital]. / Implicaciones pronósticas del daño miocárdico en pacientes con y sin diagnóstico confirmado de COVID-19 atendidos en un hospital universitario.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Cardiac troponin, a marker of myocardial injury, is frequently observed in patients with COVID-19 infection. Our objective was to analyze myocardial injury and its prognostic implications in patients with and without COVID-19 infection treated in the same period of time. METHODS: The present study included patients treated in a university hospital with cardiac troponin I measurements and with suspected COVID-19 infection, confirmed or ruled out by polymerase chain reaction analysis. The impact was analyzed of cardiac troponin I positivity on 30-day mortality. RESULTS: In total, 433 patients were distributed among the following groups: confirmed COVID-19 (n = 186), 22% with myocardial injury (n = 41); and ruled out COVID-19 (n = 247), 21.5% with myocardial injury (n = 52). The confirmed and ruled out COVID-19 groups had a similar age, sex, and cardiovascular history. Mortality was significantly higher in the confirmed COVID-19 group than in the ruled out group (19.9% vs 5.3%, P < .001). In Cox multivariate regression analysis, cardiac troponin I was a predictor of mortality in both groups (confirmed COVID-19 group: HR, 3.54; 95%CI, 1.70-7.34; P = .001; ruled out COVID-19 group: HR, 5.57; 95%CI, 1.70-18.20; P = .004). The predictive model analyzed by ROC curves was similar in the 2 groups (P = .701), with AUCs of 0.808 in the confirmed COVID-19 group (0.750-0.865) and 0.812 in the ruled out COVID-19 group (0.760-0.864). CONCLUSIONS: Myocardial injury is detected in 1 in every 5 patients with confirmed or ruled out COVID-19 and predicts 30-day mortality to a similar extent in both circumstances.

Prognostic implications of myocardial injury in patients with and without COVID-19 infection treated in a university hospital.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Cardiac troponin, a marker of myocardial injury, is frequently observed in patients with COVID-19 infection. Our objective was to analyze myocardial injury and its prognostic implications in patients with and without COVID-19 infection treated in the same period of time. METHODS: The present study included patients treated in a university hospital with cardiac troponin I measurements and with suspected COVID-19 infection, confirmed or ruled out by polymerase chain reaction analysis. The impact was analyzed of cardiac troponin I positivity on 30-day mortality. RESULTS: In total, 433 patients were distributed among the following groups: confirmed COVID-19 (n=186), 22% with myocardial injury (n=41); and ruled out COVID-19 (n=247), 21.5% with myocardial injury (n=52). The confirmed and ruled out COVID-19 groups had a similar age, sex, and cardiovascular history. Mortality was significantly higher in the confirmed COVID-19 group than in the ruled out group (19.9% vs 5.3%, P <.001). In Cox multivariate regression analysis, cardiac troponin I was a predictor of mortality in both groups (confirmed COVID-19 group: HR, 3.54; 95%CI, 1.70-7.34; P=.001; ruled out COVID-19 group: HR, 5.57; 95%CI, 1.70-18.20; P=.004). The predictive model analyzed by ROC curves was similar in the 2 groups (P=.701), with AUCs of 0.808 in the confirmed COVID-19 group (0.750-0.865) and 0.812 in the ruled out COVID-19 group (0.760-0.864). CONCLUSIONS: Myocardial injury is detected in 1 in every 5 patients with confirmed or ruled out COVID-19 and predicts 30-day mortality to a similar extent in both circumstances.