Background and Purpose: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has added challenges to providing quality acute stroke care due to the reallocation of stroke resources to COVID-19. Case series suggest that patients with COVID-19 have more severe strokes; however, no large series have compared stroke outcomes with contemporary non–COVID-19 patients. Purpose was to analyze the impact of COVID-19 pandemic in stroke care and to evaluate stroke outcomes according to the diagnosis of COVID-19. Methods: Retrospective multicenter cohort study including consecutive acute stroke patients admitted to 7 stroke centers from February 25 to April 25, 2020 (first 2 months of the COVID-19 outbreak in Madrid). The quality of stroke care was measured by the number of admissions, recanalization treatments, and time metrics. The primary outcome was death or dependence at discharge. Results: A total of 550 acute stroke patients were admitted. A significant reduction in the number of admissions and secondary interhospital transfers was found. COVID-19 was confirmed in 105 (19.1%) patients, and a further 19 patients were managed as suspected COVID-19 (3.5%). No differences were found in the rates of reperfusion therapies in ischemic strokes (45.5% non–COVID-19, 35.7% confirmed COVID-19, and 40% suspected COVID-19; P =0.265). However, the COVID-19 group had longer median door-to-puncture time (110 versus 80 minutes), which was associated with the performance of chest computed tomography. Multivariate analysis confirmed poorer outcomes for confirmed or suspected COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratios, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.12–3.76] and 3.56 [95% CI, 1.15–11.05], respectively). Conclusions: This study confirms that patients with COVID-19 have more severe strokes and poorer outcomes despite similar acute management. A well-established stroke care network helps to diminish the impact of such an outbreak in stroke care, reducing secondary transfers and allowing maintenance of reperfusion therapies, with a minor impact on door-to-puncture times, which were longer in patients who underwent chest computed tomography.

Transient ischemic attack preceding ischemic stroke does not appear to have a major influence on outcomes following thrombolysis. Patients with prior ipsilateral transient ischemic attack appear not to be at higher risk of bleeding complications.

NVAF patients treated with oral anticoagulants had many comorbidities and a high thromboembolic risk. Satisfaction and quality of life with oral anticoagulants were high, although they were both better with DOACs than with VKAs.

Background: Information is scare regarding the safety of intravenous thrombolysis in patients under anticoagulant treatment, given that this is an exclusion criterion in clinical trials. We analyzed the risk of hemorrhagic complications following thrombolysis in patients under treatment with low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) and oral anticoagulants (OA). Methods: In a multicentered prospective study of consecutive acute stroke patients treated with intravenous alteplase we recorded age, gender, baseline NIHSS score, treatment delay, risk factors, etiology and previous therapy. The neurological progress (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale at 7 days) and functional evolution at 3 months (modified Rankin Scale score), mortality and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (SICH) were compared between patients with LMWH or OA and those without prior anticoagulant therapy. Results: Of the 1,482 patients, 21 (1.4%) had received LMWH and 70 (4.7%) OA (international normalized ratio, INR, 0.9-2.0). Patients on OA were older, presented higher basal glucose levels, had been treated later and had a higher prevalence of hypertension, dyslipidemia, prior stroke, atrial fibrillation and cardioembolic pathologies. The severity of stroke on admission was similar in the different groups. The percentages of patients achieving independence (mRS 0-2) at 3 months were 33, 44 and 58 (LMWH, OA and no prior anticoagulant treatment, respectively; p = 0.02 for both comparisons of LMWH vs. no treatment and OA vs. no treatment); the mortality rates were 30, 25 and 12% (p = 0.010, p = 0.001, respectively) and the SICH were 14, 3 and 2% (p < 0.0001 for comparison of LMWH vs. no treatment). In the case of treatment with OA, the outcomes were independent of the INR value. Following adjustment for confounding variables, the prior use of OA was associated with higher mortality (OR: 2.15, 95% CI: 1.1-4.2; p = 0.026) but not with SICH transformation or lower probability of independence. The use of LMWH was associated with higher mortality (OR: 5.3, 95% CI: 1.8-15.5; p = 0.002), risk of SICH (OR: 8.4, 95% CI: 2.2-32.2; p = 0.002) and lower probability of achieving independence (OR: 0.3, 95% CI: 0.1-0.97; p = 0.043). Conclusions: The use of intravenous thrombolysis appears to be safe in patients previously treated with OA with INR levels <2 since there is no increase in SICH. The prior use of LMWH appears to increase the risk of SICH, death and dependence and, as such, the decision for systemic treatment with thrombolytic agents needs to be taken with caution in these cases. Larger case series are necessary to confirm these findings.

Background and Purpose. Intravenous thrombolysis using tissue plasminogen activator is safe and probably effective in patients >80 years old. Nevertheless, its safety has not been specifically addressed for the oldest old patients (≥85 years old, OO). We assessed the safety and effectiveness of thrombolysis in this group of age. Methods. A prospective registry of patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis. Patients were divided in two groups (<85 years and the OO). Demographic data, stroke aetiology and baseline National Institute Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score were recorded. The primary outcome measures were the percentage of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (SICH) and functional outcome at 3 months (modified Rankin Scale, mRS). Results. A total of 1,505 patients were registered. 106 patients were OO [median 88, range 85–101]. Female sex, hypertension, elevated blood pressure at admission, cardioembolic strokes and higher basal NIHSS score were more frequent in the OO. SICH transformation rates were similar (3.1% versus 3.7%, P = 1.00). The probability of independence at 3 months (mRS 0–2) was lower in the OO (40.2% versus 58.7%, P = 0.001) but not after adjustment for confounding factors (adjusted OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.37; P = 0.455). Three-month mortality was higher in the OO (28.0% versus 11.5%, P < 0.001). Conclusion. Intravenous thrombolysis for stroke in OO patients did not increase the risk of SICH although mortality was higher in this group.

Acute IS diabetic patients with PCI who were treated with IVT had similar outcomes to patients without such history, with no increase in the rates of SICH. Thus, they should not be excluded from IVT only on the basis of DM and PCI.

Background and purpose:The experience gained during the first COVID-19 wave could have mitigated the negative impact on stroke care in the following waves. Our aims were to analyze the characteristics and outcomes of patients with stroke admitted during the second COVID-19 wave and to evaluate the differences in the stroke care provision compared with the first wave. Methods: This retrospective multicenter cohort study included consecutive stroke patients admitted to any of the seven hospitals with stroke units (SUs) and endovascular treatment facilities in the Madrid Health Region. The characteristics of the stroke patients with or without a COVID-19 diagnosis were compared and the organizational changes in stroke care between the first wave (25 February to 25 April 2020) and second wave (21 July to 21 November 2020) were analyzed.Results: A total of 550 and 1191 stroke patients were admitted during the first and second COVID-19 waves, respectively, with an average daily admission rate of nine patients in both waves. During the second wave, there was a decrease in stroke severity (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale 5 vs. 6; p = 0.000), in-hospital strokes (3% vs. 8.1%) and in-hospital mortality (9.9% vs. 15.9%). Furthermore, fewer patients experienced concurrent , and they presented milder COVID-19 and less severe strokes. Fewer hospitals reported a reduction in the number of SU beds or deployment of SU personnel to COVID-19 dedicated wards during the second wave. Conclusions:During the second COVID-19 wave, fewer stroke patients were diagnosed with COVID-19, and they had less stroke severity and milder COVID-19.

No abstract