Background: Anecdotal reports suggest fewer patients with stroke symptoms are presenting to hospitals during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We quantify trends in stroke code calls and treatments at 3 Connecticut hospitals during the local emergence of COVID-19 and examine patient characteristics and stroke process measures at a Comprehensive Stroke Center (CSC) before and during the pandemic. Methods: Stroke code activity was analyzed from January 1 to April 28, 2020, and corresponding dates in 2019. Piecewise linear regression and spline models identified when stroke codes in 2020 began to decline and when they fell below 2019 levels. Patient-level data were analyzed in February versus March and April 2020 at the CSC to identify differences in patient characteristics during the pandemic. Results: A total of 822 stroke codes were activated at 3 hospitals from January 1 to April 28, 2020. The number of stroke codes/wk decreased by 12.8/wk from February 18 to March 16 ( P =0.0360) with nadir of 39.6% of expected stroke codes called from March 10 to 16 (30% decrease in total stroke codes during the pandemic weeks in 2020 versus 2019). There was no commensurate increase in within-network telestroke utilization. Compared with before the pandemic (n=167), pandemic-epoch stroke code patients at the CSC (n=211) were more likely to have histories of hypertension, dyslipidemia, coronary artery disease, and substance abuse; no or public health insurance; lower median household income; and to live in the CSC city ( P <0.05). There was no difference in age, sex, race/ethnicity, stroke severity, time to presentation, door-to-needle/door-to-reperfusion times, or discharge modified Rankin Scale. Conclusions: Hospital presentation for stroke-like symptoms decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic, without differences in stroke severity or early outcomes. Individuals living outside of the CSC city were less likely to present for stroke codes at the CSC during the pandemic. Public health initiatives to increase awareness of presenting for non-COVID-19 medical emergencies such as stroke during the pandemic are critical.

Background and Purpose: Reports indicate an increased risk of ischemic stroke during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. We aimed to identify patients with COVID-19 and ischemic stroke and explore markers of inflammation, hypercoagulability, and endotheliopathy, a structural and functional disturbance of the vascular endothelium due to a stressor. Methods: This was a retrospective, observational cohort study comparing acute ischemic stroke patients with and without COVID-19 across 3 hospitals. Timing of stroke onset during COVID-19 course and markers of inflammation, hypercoagulability, and endothelial activation were evaluated by COVID-19 status and stroke cause. Results: Twenty-one patients with ischemic stroke were diagnosed with COVID-19 during the study period. Patients with COVID-19 had a similar age and burden of vascular risk factors compared with the control cohort (n=168). We identified a temporal correlation between stroke onset and the peak of acute phase reactants, including CRP (C-reactive protein), ferritin, and d-dimer. In subsets of patients with labs available, embolic stroke of undetermined source was associated with elevated IL (interleukin)-6 (median, 171 [interquartile range, 13–375] versus 8 [4–11], P <0.01) and sIL (soluble IL)-2 receptor (1972 [1525–4720] versus 767 [563–1408.5], P =0.05) levels. Stroke patients with COVID-19 demonstrated elevated levels of endothelial activation markers compared with non-COVID-19 stroke controls (median von Willebrand activity 285.0% [interquartile range, 234%–382%] versus 150% [128%–183%], P =0.034; von Willebrand antigen 330.0% [265%–650%] versus 152% [130%–277%], P =0.007, and factor VIII 301% [289%–402%] versus 49% [26%–94%], P <0.001). Conclusions: Ischemic stroke in patients with COVID-19 is associated with endotheliopathy and a systemic inflammatory response in patients with vascular risk factors. Further research evaluating endothelial and inflammatory markers in the setting of ischemic stroke and COVID-19 in larger, prospective cohorts is needed to validate the findings.

Background and purpose: The study aimed to assess the efficiency (percent treated) of existing in-hospital stroke alert activation criteria and to improve these criteria. Methods: 209 patient records from in-hospital stroke alerts at an academic medical center between January 2015 and December 2016 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were sorted into five categories by final diagnosis: cerebral ischemia, cerebral hemorrhage, seizure, delirium or toxic/metabolic encephalopathy, and other. Acute treatment result of any in-hospital stroke was recorded. The study team determined adherence to the institution’s existing in-hospital stroke alert activation criteria. To improve efficiency a new set of in-hospital stroke alert activation criteria called “S3TOP for Stroke” was then developed. The checklist for “S3TOP for Stroke” guides hospital staff to assess the following items: symptoms, sedation, sugar, time, oxygenation and pulse. The checklist was then retrospectively applied to the 209 records. Results: Of 209 patients who received in-hospital stroke alerts according to existing activation criteria: 192 (91.9%) met existing criteria, and 14 (6.7%) received acute stroke treatment. Applying the “S3TOP for Stroke” checklist to the study group excluded 56 of these and included all 14 (14/153 =9.2%) who received acute stroke treatment. Conclusions: This study found good adherence with poor efficiency for existing institutional stroke alert activation criteria. Retrospectively, the “S3TOP for Stroke” checklist improved efficiency. Prospective testing of this algorithm is underway.