Impact of COVID-19 Infection on the Outcome of Patients With Ischemic Stroke.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We evaluated whether stroke severity, functional outcome, and mortality are different in patients with ischemic stroke with or without coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. METHODS: A prospective, observational, multicentre cohort study in Catalonia, Spain. Recruitment was consecutive from mid-March to mid-May 2020. Patients had an acute ischemic stroke within 48 hours and a previous modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0 to 3. We collected demographic data, vascular risk factors, prior mRS score, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, rate of reperfusion therapies, logistics, and metrics. Primary end point was functional outcome at 3 months. Favourable outcome was defined depending on the previous mRS score. Secondary outcome was mortality at 3 months. We performed mRS shift and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: We evaluated 701 patients (mean age 72.3±13.3 years, 60.5% men) and 91 (13%) had COVID-19 infection. Median baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was higher in patients with COVID-19 compared with patients without COVID-19 (8 [3-18] versus 6 [2-14], P=0.049). Proportion of patients with a favourable functional outcome was 33.7% in the COVID-19 and 47% in the non-COVID-19 group. However, after a multivariable logistic regression analysis, COVID-19 infection did not increase the probability of unfavourable functional outcome. Mortality rate was 39.3% among patients with COVID-19 and 16.1% in the non-COVID-19 group. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, COVID-19 infection was a risk factor for mortality (hazard ratio, 3.14 [95% CI, 2.10-4.71]; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ischemic stroke and COVID-19 infection have more severe strokes and a higher mortality than patients with stroke without COVID-19 infection. However, functional outcome is comparable in both groups.

Remote Intracerebral Hemorrhage After Intravenous Thrombolysis: Results From a Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Remote parenchymal hemorrhage (rPH) after intravenous thrombolysis with recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator may be associated with cerebral amyloid angiopathy, although supportive data are limited. We aimed to investigate risk factors of rPH after intravenous thrombolysis with recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator. METHODS: This is an observational study of patients with ischemic stroke who were treated with intravenous thrombolysis with recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator and were included in a multicenter prospective registry. rPH was defined as any extraischemic hemorrhage detected in the follow-up computed tomography. We collected demographic, clinical, laboratory, radiological, and outcome variables. In the subset of patients who underwent a magnetic resonance imaging examination, we evaluated the distribution and burden of cerebral microbleeds, cortical superficial siderosis, leukoaraiosis, and recent silent ischemia in regions anatomically unrelated to the ischemic lesion that caused the initial symptoms. We compared patients with rPH with those without rPH or parenchymal hemorrhage. Independent risk factors for rPH were obtained by multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: We evaluated 992 patients (mean age, 74.0±12.6 years; 52.9% were men), and 408 (41%) of them underwent a magnetic resonance imaging. Twenty-six patients (2.6%) had a rPH, 8 (0.8%) had both rPH and PH, 58 (5.8%) had PH, and 900 (90.7%) had no bleeding complication. Lobar cerebral microbleeds (odds ratio, 8.0; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-27.2) and recent silent ischemia (odds ratio, 4.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-14.1) increased the risk of rPH. CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence of rPH after intravenous thrombolysis with recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator in patients with ischemic stroke is associated with lobar cerebral microbleeds and multiple ischemic lesions in different regions.

Phone and Video-Based Modalities of Central Blinded Adjudication of Modified Rankin Scores in an Endovascular Stroke Trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The standard outcome measure in stroke research is modified Rankin scale (mRS) evaluated by local blinded investigators. We aimed to assess feasibility and reliability of 2 central adjudication methods of mRS in the setting of a randomized endovascular stroke trial. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis derived from the Randomized Trial of Revascularization With Solitaire FR Device Versus Best Medical Therapy in the Treatment of Acute Stroke Due to Anterior Circulation Large Vessel Occlusion Presenting Within Eight Hours of Symptom Onset (REVASCAT) trial cohort. Primary outcome was distribution of mRS at 90 days. Local evaluation was done by certified investigators masked to treatment assignment using structured face-to-face interviews. In addition, central assessment was performed by 2 independent raters via structured phone interview (n=120) and via video recordings of the face-to-face interviews with local investigators (n=106). Interrater agreement was evaluated using kappa and discordance statistics. Sensitivity analyses for the primary end point using different adjudication approaches were performed. Correlation between mRS obtained with each modality and 24-hour follow-up infarct volumes was studied. RESULTS: Using local evaluation as the reference, higher agreement rates were noted with central video than with central phone evaluations (kw 0.92 [0.88-0.96] versus 0.77 [0.72-0.83]). Discrepancies in mRS scoring between local and central raters (phone- and video-based) were similar in both treatment allocation arms. Sensitivity analyses showed benefit of endovascular treatment irrespective of adjudication method, but higher odds ratios were observed with local evaluations. Final infarct volume was similarly correlated with mRS across all 3 evaluation modalities. CONCLUSIONS: Central adjudication of mRS is feasible, reducing interrater variability and avoiding potential problems related to lack of blinding. Our findings may have implications in the planning of future randomized acute stroke trials, especially in those including nonpharmacological interventions. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01692379.