Background and Purpose: Studies suggest an increased risk of adverse outcomes among patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: Using Get With The Guidelines–Stroke, we identified 41 971 patients (AIS/COVID-19: 1143; AIS/no COVID-19: 40 828) with AIS hospitalized between February 4, 2020 and June 29, 2020, from 458 Get With The Guidelines–Stroke hospitals with at least one COVID-19 case and evaluated clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes. Results: Compared with patients with AIS/no COVID-19, those with AIS/COVID-19 were younger, more likely to be non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, or Asian, more likely to present with higher National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores, and had greater proportions of large vessel occlusions. Rates of thrombolysis and thrombectomy were similar between the groups. Door to computed tomography (median 55 [18–207] versus 35 [14–99] minutes, P <0.001), door to needle (59 [40–82] versus 46 [33–64] minutes, P <0.001), and door to endovascular therapy (114 [74–169] versus 90 [54–133] minutes, P =0.002) times were longer in the AIS/COVID-19 cohort. In adjusted models, patients with AIS/COVID-19 had decreased odds of discharge with modified Rankin Scale score of ≤2 (odds ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.52–0.81], P <0.001) and increased odds of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 4.34 [95% CI, 3.48–5.40], P <0.001). ConclusionS: This analysis demonstrates younger age, greater stroke severity, longer times to evaluation and treatment, and worse morbidity and mortality in patients with AIS/COVID-19 compared with those with AIS/no COVID-19.

Background and Purpose: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created challenges in the delivery of acute stroke care. In this study, we analyze the characteristics, evaluation, treatment, and in-hospital outcomes of patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) pre-COVID-19 and during COVID-19. Methods: Get With The Guidelines-Stroke is a national registry of adults with stroke in the United States. Using this registry, we identified patients with a diagnosis of AIS before (n=39 113; November 1, 2019–February 3, 2020) and after (n=41 971; February 4, 2020–June 29, 2020) the first reported case of COVID-19 in the registry. Characteristics, treatment patterns, quality metrics, and in-hospital outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. Results: Stroke presentations decreased by an average of 15.3% per week in the during COVID-19 time period when compared with similar months in 2019. Compared with patients with AIS in the pre-COVID-19 era, patients in the COVID-19 time period had similar rates of intravenous alteplase and endovascular therapy, and similar door to computed tomography, door to needle, and door to endovascular therapy times. In adjusted models, inpatient mortality was similar between those presenting with AIS pre-COVID-19 and during COVID-19 (4.8% versus 5.2%; odds ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.97–1.13]). Conclusions: Among hospitals participating in Get With The Guidelines-Stroke, patients presenting with AIS during COVID-19 received, with few exceptions, similar quality care and experienced similar risk-adjusted outcomes when compared with patients with AIS presenting pre-COVID-19. These findings demonstrate that stroke care in the United States remains robust during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objectives Most acute stroke research is conducted at academic and larger hospitals, which may differ from many non‐academic (ie, community) and smaller hospitals with respect to resources and consultant availability. We describe current emergency department (ED) and hospital‐level stroke‐related capabilities among a sample of community EDs participating in the Emergency Quality Network (E‐QUAL) stroke collaborative. Methods Among E‐QUAL‐participating EDs, we conducted a survey to collect data on ED and hospital stroke‐related structural and process capabilities associated with quality of stroke care delivery and patient outcomes. EDs submitted data using a web‐based submission portal. We present descriptive statistics of self‐reported capabilities. Results Of 154 participating EDs in 30 states, 97 (63%) completed the survey. Many were rural (33%); most (82%) were not certified stroke centers. Although most reported having stroke protocols (67%), many did not include hemorrhagic stroke or transient ischemic attack (45% and 57%, respectively). Capability to perform emergent head computed tomography and to administer thrombolysis were not universal (absent in 4% and 5%, respectively). Access to neurologic consultants varied; 18% reported no 24/7 availability onsite or remotely. Of those with access, 48% reported access through telemedicine only. Admission capabilities also varied with patient transfer commonly performed (79%). Conclusion Stroke‐related capabilities vary substantially between community EDs and are different from capabilities typically found in larger stroke centers. These data may be valuable for identifying areas for future investment. Additionally, the design of stroke quality improvement interventions and metrics to evaluate emergency stroke care delivery should account for these key structural differences.

Objective The American Heart Association recently raised the bar on the timely treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) with intravenous alteplase. Our study looks at the effectiveness of this new standard, by examining the effect of varying door‐to‐needle times of alteplase initiation on the clinical, quality of care, and efficiency of care outcomes. Methods This retrospective case–control study examined 752 AIS patients treated with intravenous alteplase in a large academic health system during 2015–2018, and compared their outcomes after treatment within 30, 45, and 60 min of arrival. The outcomes compared were: (1) clinical – discharge and 90‐day modified Rankin Scale (mRS), and post‐intravenous alteplase (24‐h) NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS); (2) quality of care – inpatient mortality, 30‐day readmission, discharge to home, and disability at discharge; (3) efficiency of care – length of stay (LOS) and index stroke hospitalization costs. Adjusted logistic and linear regression analyses were used to estimate the effects, after controlling for baseline characteristics. Results Based on the adjusted regression analyses, treatment within 30 min of arrival was associated with better post‐treatment mRS and NIHSS scores, and the clinical benefits were reduced when the windows were expanded to within 45 or 60 min. An important finding of the study was that treatment within 30 min of arrival significantly reduced the average LOS. Interpretation Early intravenous alteplase treatment significantly improved clinical and efficiency of care outcomes. This study provides evidence that meeting the new AHA Target Stroke recommendations will help hospitals improve patient clinical outcomes and reduce LOS, thereby improving the efficiency of care standards.

Introduction:People with haemophilia rely on specialists for their care, yet the specific dosing regimens of treatments prescribed by these specialists have not been widely studied. Aim:The objective of this study is to describe trends in clinician prescribing practices for the management of haemophilia in the United States (US). Methods:We administered surveys to members of the Hemostasis and Thrombosis Research Society via paper surveys at its in-person annual symposia in 1999 and 2015, and an online survey in 2021. The surveys collected information on haemophilia treatments including factor dosing, inhibitor therapy and gene therapy.Results: Clinicians treating haemophilia for more than 50% of their practice time have increased from 37.5% of respondents in 1999 to 46.3% in 2021. Clinicians prescribing factor concentrates at >40 units/kg for routine bleeding events increased from 0% in 1999 to 29.3% in 2021 in haemophilia A (HA) and from 22.5% to 87.8% in haemophilia B (HB). In 2021, the clinicians reported prescribing emicizumab to treat HA patients (>89.5% paediatric, >85.7% adult) with or without inhibitors at least some of the time.Approximately 78.0% of respondents reported that they expected to recommend gene therapy at least some of time. Conclusion:These data indicate changing trends in prescribing practices among US haemophilia specialists during the past 22 years. Preference for high doses of factor (>40 units/kg) has increased during this period. Emicizumab prophylaxis has been prescribed for patients with and without HA inhibitors. Clinicians expect gene therapy to have value for some haemophilia patients.