Risk, Clinical Course, and Outcome of Ischemic Stroke in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The frequency of ischemic stroke in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) varies in the current literature, and risk factors are unknown. We assessed the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of acute ischemic stroke in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We included patients with a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2) infection admitted in 16 Dutch hospitals participating in the international CAPACITY-COVID registry between March 1 and August 1, 2020. Patients were screened for the occurrence of acute ischemic stroke. We calculated the cumulative incidence of ischemic stroke and compared risk factors, cardiovascular complications, and in-hospital mortality in patients with and without ischemic stroke. RESULTS: We included 2147 patients with COVID-19, of whom 586 (27.3%) needed treatment at an intensive care unit. Thirty-eight patients (1.8%) had an ischemic stroke. Patients with stroke were older but did not differ in sex or cardiovascular risk factors. Median time between the onset of COVID-19 symptoms and diagnosis of stroke was 2 weeks. The incidence of ischemic stroke was higher among patients who were treated at an intensive care unit (16/586; 2.7% versus nonintensive care unit, 22/1561; 1.4%; P=0.039). Pulmonary embolism was more common in patients with (8/38; 21.1%) than in those without stroke (160/2109; 7.6%; adjusted risk ratio, 2.08 [95% CI, 1.52-2.84]). Twenty-seven patients with ischemic stroke (71.1%) died during admission or were functionally dependent at discharge. Patients with ischemic stroke were at a higher risk of in-hospital mortality (adjusted risk ratio, 1.56 [95% CI, 1.13-2.15]) than patients without stroke. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter cohort study, the cumulative incidence of acute ischemic stroke in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was ≈2%, with a higher risk in patients treated at an intensive care unit. The majority of stroke patients had a poor outcome. The association between ischemic stroke and pulmonary embolism warrants further investigation.

Corticosteroid injection in patients with ulnar neuropathy at the elbow: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the effect of ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection in patients with ulnar neuropathy at the elbow (UNE). METHODS: Fifty-five patients were randomized between an ultrasound-guided injection of 1 ml containing 40 mg methylprednisolone acetate and 10 mg lidocaine hydrochloride or a placebo injection. The primary outcome was the subjective change of symptoms after 3 months. The secondary outcomes were change in electrodiagnostic studies and ultrasonography findings. RESULTS: A success rate of 30% was found in the corticosteroid injection group versus 28% in the placebo injection group. Only the nerve cross-sectional area changed significantly in the intervention group, from a mean of 11.9 mm(2) to 10.9 mm(2) . CONCLUSIONS: We could not demonstrate a positive effect of ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection in UNE compared with placebo. Favorable outcomes may be attributed to the natural course of UNE or the effect of patient education.

Long-term outcomes of successful left atrial appendage occlusion with focus on stroke prevention: 10-year follow-up of a single-center registry.

Background: Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is an alternative to anticoagulation in the prevention of stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, especially in patients with a contraindication for oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT). Objective: The study sought to obtain long-term patient outcomes after successful LAAO in everyday clinical practice. Methods: In this single-center registry spanning over 10 years, data of all consecutive patients that underwent percutaneous LAAO were collected. Observed thromboembolic and major bleeding event rates after successful LAAO during follow-up were compared with expected event rates based on CHA2DS2-VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack or thromboembolism, vascular disease, age 65-74 years, sex category) and HAS-BLED (hypertension, abnormal renal or liver function, stroke, bleeding, labile international normalized ratio, elderly, drugs or alcohol) scores. Furthermore, anticoagulation and antiplatelet use during follow-up was evaluated. Results: Of 230 patients scheduled for LAAO (38% women, 69.5 ± 8.2 years of age, CHA2DS2-VASc score 3.9 ± 1.6, HAS-BLED score 2.9 ± 1.0), 218 patients had a successful implantation (95%) with a follow-up duration of 5.2 ± 3.1 years. The procedure was combined with catheter ablation in 52% of the patients. Fifty thromboembolic complications (24 ischemic stroke, 26 transient ischemic attack) were observed during follow-up in 40 (18%) of 218 patients. Ischemic strokes occurred with a rate of 2.1 per 100 patient-years, accounting for a 66% relative risk reduction compared with the CHA2DS2-VASc predicted event rate. Device-related thrombus was observed in 5 (2%) patients. Sixty-five nonprocedural major bleeding complications occurred in 24 (11%) of 218 patients with a rate of 5.7 per 100-patient years, which is comparable to estimated HAS-BLED-bleeding rates under OAT use. At end of follow-up 71% of all patients were on single antiplatelet or no antiplatelet or anticoagulation treatment, while 29% were on OAT. Conclusion: Thromboembolic event rates during long-term follow-up after successful LAAO remained consistently lower than expected supporting the efficacy of LAAO.

[Neck pain: when is it ominous?] / Nekpijn: wanneer omineus?

Three patients with acute severe neck pain, presented with and without neurological deficits. One patient had severe neck pain followed by autonomic dysfunction, aphagia and dysarthria. She had an vertebrobasilar infarction due to the etiology of a dissection of both vertebral arteries. In one patient with a subarachnoidal bleeding, were the complaints mainly started with severe neck pain. There was no aneurysma found. One patient presented with severe pain in the right side of the neck, shoulders and her right arm. She had a hemiparesis. Because of the suspicion of a cerebral infarction, additional anticoagulation was started. She developed a paraparalysis. Her diagnosis was an acute spontaneous cervical epidural hematoma In a few cases, the presence of solely per-acute neck pain is found as symptom of a subarachnoid hemorrhage. In cases of acute neck pain with alarm symptoms, the patient should be referred to the emergency department.

SMART syndrome: a late reversible complication after radiation therapy for brain tumours.

With intensified treatment leading to longer survival, complications of therapy for brain tumours are more frequently observed. Regarding radiation therapy, progressive and irreversible white matter disease with cognitive decline is most feared. We report on four patients with reversible clinical and radiological features occurring years after radiation for brain tumours, suggestive for the so called SMART syndrome (stroke-like migraine attacks after radiation therapy). All four patients (males, age 36-60 years) had been treated with focal brain radiation for a primary brain tumour or with whole-brain radiation therapy for brain metastases. Ranging from 2 to 10 years following radiation therapy patients presented with headache and focal neurological deficits, suggestive for tumour recurrence. Two patients also presented with focal seizures. MRI demonstrated typical cortical swelling and contrast enhancement, primarily in the parieto-occipital region. On follow-up both clinical and MRI features improved spontaneously. Three patients eventually proved to have tumour recurrence. The clinical and radiological picture of these patients is compatible with the SMART syndrome, a rare complication of radiation therapy which is probably under recognized in brain tumour patients. The pathophysiology of the SMART syndrome is poorly understood but bears similarities with the posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES). These four cases underline that the SMART syndrome should be considered in patients formerly treated with radiation therapy for brain tumours, who present with new neurologic deficits. Before the diagnosis of SMART syndrome can be established other causes, such as local tumour recurrence, leptomeningeal disease or ischemic disease should be ruled out.