Mechanical Revascularization in the Era of the Field Assessment Stroke Triage for Emergency Destination (FAST-ED): A Retrospective Cohort Assessment in a Community Stroke Practice.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular mechanical revascularization has become the mainstay acute stroke management secondary to emergent large vessel occlusions. In patients who can benefit from mechanical revascularization, the ability to intervene in a timely manner directly correlates with improved outcomes. The field assessment for stroke triage (FAST-ED) prehospital triage tool, is one of many stroke severity scales designed to decrease time to diagnosis in the field and optimize patient triage to comprehensive stroke centers. It is however unclear what impact if any, this tool has on time to activation of hospital stroke intervention teams. We set out to assess the impact of the implementation of the FAST-ED triage tool on the activation of the stroke intervention team in a community stroke treatment practice. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed institutional records for consecutive admissions with reported stroke alerts between March 2017 and September 2018, and selected patients who presented via Emergency Medical Services (EMS). The association between FAST-ED scores and impact on time to revascularization as well as the association between FAST-ED scores and the presence of emergent large vessel occlusion were analyzed. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant improvement in interventional team activation times in favor of the FAST-ED cohort, (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: FAST-ED implementation demonstrates a statistically significant improvement on stroke team activation times for patients who are candidates for mechanical revascularization. Larger cohort analysis is needed to fully evaluate the magnitude of this effect.

Sex, Hormones, Immune Functions, and Susceptibility to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-Related Morbidity.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), uses two primary receptors, type II transmembrane serine protease and angiotensin-converting enzyme-2, for priming and cellular invasion, respectively. Both proteins have been demonstrated to be present in different concentrations in females and males, which may explain a mechanism for the reported higher case-fatality rate in males. Despite the known sex difference in COVID-19 disease mortality, preliminary data suggest there are certain female populations, including pregnant and menopausal women and possibly polycystic ovarian syndrome patients who are more susceptible to COVID-19-related morbidity. This commentary analyzes the interplay between sex differences, hormones, and the immune function in each of these populations with respect to the risk and severity of COVID-19 and proposes biological rationales to explain these differences.

Trends in Breast Cancer Screening: Impact of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Although there is general agreement among various guidelines on benefits of routine screening mammography, the age of screening initiation and the optimal frequency of the test remain controversial. In 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against routine breast cancer screening in women aged younger than 50 years. In this study, screening mammography guideline adherence among U.S. women is explored by examining patterns in rates of mammography age of initiation and utilization in years prior to and following the 2009 USPSTF guideline implementation. METHODS: U.S. population-based data from the 2007, 2008, 2010, and 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys were used to measure the overall proportion and rate of change in the proportion of women who underwent screening mammography within the last year, by age and survey year. Data were accessed and analyzed in July 2014. RESULTS: Rates of mammography screening were lower in 2010 and 2012 compared with 2007 and 2008 (p<0.0001). The rate of screening initiation at age 40 years increased over time and was the highest in the years following USPSTF guideline changes (p=0.012). CONCLUSIONS: These data support no perceptible change in U.S. women's patterns of screening mammography age at initiation within 3 years of the USPSTF guideline revision. Whether this finding reflects a delayed effect of guideline revision in population trends or rather health provider practice and patient preference for more frequent screening is unclear and requires further investigation.