Treatment with CD34+ hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells has been shown to improve functional recovery in nonhuman models of ischemic stroke via promotion of angiogenesis and neurogenesis. We aimed to determine the safety and feasibility of treatment with CD34+ cells delivered intra-arterially in patients with acute ischemic stroke. This was the first study in human subjects. We performed a prospective, nonrandomized, open-label, phase I study of autologous, immunoselected CD34+ stem/progenitor cell therapy in patients presenting within 7 days of onset with severe anterior circulation ischemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score≥8). CD34+ cells were collected from the bone marrow of the subjects before being delivered by catheter angiography into the ipsilesional middle cerebral artery. Eighty-two patients with severe anterior circulation ischemic stroke were screened, of whom five proceeded to treatment. The common reasons for exclusion were age>80 years (n=19); medical instability (n=17), and significant carotid stenosis (n=13). The procedure was well tolerated in all patients, and no significant treatment-related adverse effects occurred. All patients showed improvements in clinical functional scores (Modified Rankin Score and NIHSS score) and reductions in lesion volume during a 6-month follow-up period. Autologous CD34+ selected stem/progenitor cell therapy delivered intra-arterially into the infarct territory can be achieved safely in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Future studies that address eligibility criteria, dosage, delivery site, and timing and that use surrogate imaging markers of outcome are desirable before larger scale clinical trials.

Objective:The objectives of this study were to measure the global impact of the pandemic on the volumes for intravenous thrombolysis (IVT), IVT transfers, and stroke hospitalizations over 4 months at the height of the pandemic (March 1 to June 30, 2020) compared with two control 4-month periods.Methods:We conducted a cross-sectional, observational, retrospective study across 6 continents, 70 countries, and 457 stroke centers. Diagnoses were identified by their ICD-10 codes and/or classifications in stroke databases.Results:There were 91,373 stroke admissions in the 4 months immediately before compared to 80,894 admissions during the pandemic months, representing an 11.5% (95%CI, -11.7 to - 11.3, p<0.0001) decline. There were 13,334 IVT therapies in the 4 months preceding compared to 11,570 procedures during the pandemic, representing a 13.2% (95%CI, -13.8 to -12.7, p<0.0001) drop. Interfacility IVT transfers decreased from 1,337 to 1,178, or an 11.9% decrease (95%CI, -13.7 to -10.3, p=0.001). Recovery of stroke hospitalization volume (9.5%, 95%CI 9.2-9.8, p<0.0001) was noted over the two later (May, June) versus the two earlier (March, April) pandemic months. There was a 1.48% stroke rate across 119,967 COVID-19 hospitalizations. SARS-CoV-2 infection was noted in 3.3% (1,722/52,026) of all stroke admissions.Conclusions:The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a global decline in the volume of stroke hospitalizations, IVT, and interfacility IVT transfers. Primary stroke centers and centers with higher COVID19 inpatient volumes experienced steeper declines. Recovery of stroke hospitalization was noted in the later pandemic months.

We set out to determine which characteristics and outcomes of stroke are associated with COVID-19. Methods This case-control study included patients admitted with stroke to 13 hospitals in England and Scotland between 9 th March and 5 th July 2020. We collected data on86strokes (81 ischaemic strokes and 5intracerebral haemorrhages)in patients withevidence of COVID-19 at the time of stroke onset (Cases). They were compared with 1384strokes(1193 ischaemic strokes and 191 intracerebral haemorrhages) in patients admitted during the same time periodwho never had evidence of COVID-19 (Controls). In addition the whole group of stroke admissions, including another 37 in patients who appear to have developed COVID-19 after their stroke, were included in two logistic regression analyses examining which features wereindependently associated with COVID-19 status and with inpatient mortality. Results Cases with ischaemic stroke were more likely than ischaemic controls to occur in Asians (18.8% vs 6.7%, p<0.0002), were more likely to involve multiple large vessel occlusions (17•9% vs 8.1%, p<0•03), were more severe (median NIHSS 8 vs 5, p<0•002), were associated with higher D-dimer levels (p<0•01) and were associated withmore severe disability on discharge (median mRS 4 vs 3, p<0•0001) and inpatientdeath (19.8% vs9•6%, p<0•0001). Recurrence of stroke during the patient's admission was rare in Cases and Controls (2.3% vs1.0%, NS). Conclusions Our data suggest that COVID-19 may be an important modifier of the onset, characteristics and outcome of acute ischaemic stroke.

Video abstract Video

The South Asian subgroup has shown important differences in risk factor profile compared with the White population. The higher frequency of hypertension, diabetes and hyperlipidaemia seen in this subgroup are an important consideration in designing secondary prevention programmes tailored specifically to this community.

Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability. Globally, 15 million people suffer a stroke each year, of whom more than 5 million die, and a further 5 million are left permanently disabled. Current treatment options offer modest benefits, and there is a pressing need for new and effective treatments. Stem cell therapy is a well-established treatment modality for various haematological diseases, with its use now being explored in different disease processes, including various neurological diseases, as well as vascular conditions such as ischaemic heart disease and peripheral vascular disease. Promising results have been seen in animal models of stroke, with evidence of significant functional benefits. Translation to the bedside, however, is in its early stages. This review will discuss the scientific background to stem cell therapy in ischaemic stroke, including evidence from current clinical trials.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is having major implications for stroke services worldwide. We aimed to study the impact of the national lockdown period during the COVID-19 outbreak on stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) care in London, UK.Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from a quality improvement registry of consecutive patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke and TIA to the Stroke Department, Imperial College Health Care Trust London during the national lockdown period (between March 23rd and 30th June 2020). As controls, we evaluated the clinical reports and stroke quality metrics of patients presenting with stroke or TIA in the same period of 2019.Results: Between March 23rd and 30th June 2020, we documented a fall in the number of stroke admissions by 31.33% and of TIA outpatient referrals by 24.44% compared to the same period in 2019. During the lockdown, we observed a significant increase in symptom onset-to-door time in patients presenting with stroke (median = 240 vs. 160 min, p = 0.020) and TIA (median = 3 vs. 0 days, p = 0.002) and a significant reduction in the total number of patients thrombolysed [27 (11.49%) vs. 46 (16.25%, p = 0.030)]. Patients in the 2020 cohort presented with a lower median pre-stroke mRS (p = 0.015), but an increased NIHSS (p = 0.002). We registered a marked decrease in mimic diagnoses compared to the same period of 2019. Statistically significant differences were found between the COVID and pre-COVID cohorts in the time from onset to door (median 99 vs. 88 min, p = 0.026) and from onset to needle (median 148 vs. 126 min, p = 0.036) for thrombolysis whilst we did not observe any significant delay to reperfusion therapies (door-to-needle and door-to-groin puncture time).Conclusions: National lockdown in the UK due to the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant decrease in acute stroke admission and TIA evaluations at our stroke center. Moreover, a lower proportion of acute stroke patients in the pandemic cohort benefited from reperfusion therapy. Further research is needed to evaluate the long-term effects of the pandemic on stroke care.

BACKGROUND The best management of basilar artery occlusion (BAO) remains uncertain. The BASICS (Basilar Artery International Cooperation Study) and the BEST (Basilar Artery Occlusion Endovascular Intervention Versus Standard Medical Treatment) trials reported neutral results. We sought to understand physicians’ approaches to BAOs and whether further BAO randomized controlled trials were warranted. METHODS We conducted an online international survey from January to March 2022 to stroke neurologists and neurointerventionalists. Survey questions were designed to examine clinical and imaging parameters under which clinicians would offer (or rescind) a patient with BAO to endovascular therapy (EVT) or best medical management versus enrollment into a randomized clinical trial. RESULTS Of >3002 invited participants, 1245 responded (41.4% response rate) from 73 countries, including 54.7% stroke neurologists and 43.6% neurointerventionalists. More than 95% of respondents would offer EVT to patients with BAO, albeit in various clinical circumstances. There were 70.0% of respondents who indicated that the BASICS and BEST trials did not change their practice. Only 22.1% of respondents would perform EVT according to anterior circulation occlusion criteria. The selection of patients for BAO EVT by clinical severity, timing, and imaging modality differed according to geography, specialty, and country income level. Over 80% of respondents agreed that further randomized clinical trials for BAO were warranted. Moreover, 45.6% of respondents indicated they would find it acceptable to enroll all trial‐eligible patients into the medical arm of a BAO trial, whereas 26.3% would not enroll. CONCLUSION Most stroke physicians continue to believe in the efficacy of EVT in selected patients with BAO in spite of BEST and BASICS. There is no consensus on which selection criteria to use, and few clinicians would use anterior circulation occlusion criteria for BAOs. Further randomized clinical trials for BAO are warranted.