Central Retinal Artery Occlusion: Current Practice, Awareness and Prehospital Delays in Switzerland

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Central retinal artery occlusion (CRAO) often leads to permanent monocular blindness. Hence, early recognition and rapid re-perfusion is of paramount importance. This study aims to describe prehospital pathways in CRAO compared to stroke and study the knowledge about CRAO. METHODS: (1) Description of baseline characteristics, prehospital pathways/delays, and acute treatment (thrombolysis/thrombectomy vs. standard of care) of patients with CRAO and ischemic stroke registered in the Swiss Stroke Registry. (2) Online survey about CRAO knowledge amongst population, general practitioners (GPs) and ophthalmologists in Eastern Switzerland. RESULTS: Three hundred and ninety seven CRAO and 32,816 ischemic stroke cases were registered from 2014 until 2019 in 20 Stroke Centers/Units in Switzerland. In CRAO, 25.6% arrived at the hospital within 4 h of symptom onset and had a lower rate of emergency referrals. Hence, the symptom-to-door time was significantly longer in CRAO compared to stroke (852 min. vs. 300 min). The thrombolysis/thrombectomy rate was 13.2% in CRAO and 30.9% in stroke. 28.6% of the surveyed population recognized CRAO-symptoms, 55.4% of which would present directly to the emergency department in contrast to 90.0% with stroke symptoms. Almost 100% of the ophthalmologist and general practitioners recognized CRAO as a medical emergency and 1/3 of them considered IV thrombolysis a potentially beneficial therapy. CONCLUSIONS: CRAO awareness of the general population and physician awareness about the treatment options as well as the non-standardized prehospital organization, seems to be the main reason for the prehospital delays and impedes treating CRAO patients. Educational efforts should be undertaken to improve awareness about CRAO

Safety and effectiveness of IV Thrombolysis in retinal artery occlusion: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND Retinal artery occlusion (RAO) may lead to irreversible blindness. For acute RAO, intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) can be considered as treatment. However, due to the rarity of RAO, data about IVT safety and effectiveness is limited. METHODS From the multicenter database ThRombolysis for Ischemic Stroke Patients (TRISP), we retrospectively analyzed visual acuity (VA) at baseline and within 3 months in IVT and non-IVT treated RAO patients. Primary outcome was difference of VA between baseline and follow up (∆VA). Secondary outcomes were rates of visual recovery (defined as improvement of VA ⩾ 0.3 logMAR), and safety (symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) according to ECASS II criteria, asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and major extracranial bleeding). Statistical analysis was performed using parametric tests and a linear regression model adjusted for age, sex and baseline VA. RESULTS We screened 200 patients with acute RAO and included 47 IVT and 34 non-IVT patients with complete information about recovery of vision. Visual Acuity at follow up significantly improved compared to baseline in IVT patients (∆VA 0.5 ± 0.8, p < 0.001) and non-IVT patients (∆VA 0.40 ± 1.1, p < 0.05). No significant differences in ∆VA and visual recovery rate were found between groups at follow up. Two asymptomatic ICH (4%) and one (2%) major extracranial bleeding (intraocular bleeding) occurred in the IVT group, while no bleeding events were reported in the non-IVT group. CONCLUSION Our study provides real-life data from the largest cohort of IVT treated RAO patients published so far. While there is no evidence for superiority of IVT compared to conservative treatment, bleeding rates were low. A randomized controlled trial and standardized outcome assessments in RAO patients are justified to assess the net benefit of IVT in RAO

Safety and effectiveness of IV Thrombolysis in retinal artery occlusion: A multicenter retrospective cohort study

Background: Retinal artery occlusion (RAO) may lead to irreversible blindness. For acute RAO, intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) can be considered as treatment. However, due to the rarity of RAO, data about IVT safety and effectiveness is limited. Methods: From the multicenter database ThRombolysis for Ischemic Stroke Patients (TRISP), we retrospectively analyzed visual acuity (VA) at baseline and within 3 months in IVT and non-IVT treated RAO patients. Primary outcome was difference of VA between baseline and follow up (∆VA). Secondary outcomes were rates of visual recovery (defined as improvement of VA ⩾ 0.3 logMAR), and safety (symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) according to ECASS II criteria, asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and major extracranial bleeding). Statistical analysis was performed using parametric tests and a linear regression model adjusted for age, sex and baseline VA. Results: We screened 200 patients with acute RAO and included 47 IVT and 34 non-IVT patients with complete information about recovery of vision. Visual Acuity at follow up significantly improved compared to baseline in IVT patients (∆VA 0.5 ± 0.8, p < 0.001) and non-IVT patients (∆VA 0.40 ± 1.1, p < 0.05). No significant differences in ∆VA and visual recovery rate were found between groups at follow up. Two asymptomatic ICH (4%) and one (2%) major extracranial bleeding (intraocular bleeding) occurred in the IVT group, while no bleeding events were reported in the non-IVT group. Conclusion: Our study provides real-life data from the largest cohort of IVT treated RAO patients published so far. While there is no evidence for superiority of IVT compared to conservative treatment, bleeding rates were low. A randomized controlled trial and standardized outcome assessments in RAO patients are justified to assess the net benefit of IVT in RAO

Central Retinal Artery Occlusion: Current Practice, Awareness and Prehospital Delays in Switzerland.

Central retinal artery occlusion (CRAO) often leads to permanent monocular blindness. Hence, early recognition and rapid re-perfusion is of paramount importance. This study aims to describe prehospital pathways in CRAO compared to stroke and study the knowledge about CRAO. (1) Description of baseline characteristics, prehospital pathways/delays, and acute treatment (thrombolysis/thrombectomy vs. standard of care) of patients with CRAO and ischemic stroke registered in the Swiss Stroke Registry. (2) Online survey about CRAO knowledge amongst population, general practitioners (GPs) and ophthalmologists in Eastern Switzerland. Three hundred and ninety seven CRAO and 32,816 ischemic stroke cases were registered from 2014 until 2019 in 20 Stroke Centers/Units in Switzerland. In CRAO, 25.6% arrived at the hospital within 4 h of symptom onset and had a lower rate of emergency referrals. Hence, the symptom-to-door time was significantly longer in CRAO compared to stroke (852 min. vs. 300 min). The thrombolysis/thrombectomy rate was 13.2% in CRAO and 30.9% in stroke. 28.6% of the surveyed population recognized CRAO-symptoms, 55.4% of which would present directly to the emergency department in contrast to 90.0% with stroke symptoms. Almost 100% of the ophthalmologist and general practitioners recognized CRAO as a medical emergency and 1/3 of them considered IV thrombolysis a potentially beneficial therapy. CRAO awareness of the general population and physician awareness about the treatment options as well as the non-standardized prehospital organization, seems to be the main reason for the prehospital delays and impedes treating CRAO patients. Educational efforts should be undertaken to improve awareness about CRAO

Subcutaneous anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin for prevention of disease in asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trialResearch in context

Summary: Background: Anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin (hIG) can provide standardized and controlled antibody content. Data from controlled clinical trials using hIG for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 outpatients have not been reported. We assessed the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin 20% (C19-IG20%) compared to placebo in preventing development of symptomatic COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: We did a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, in asymptomatic unvaccinated adults (≥18 years of age) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 5 days between April 28 and December 27, 2021. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a blinded subcutaneous infusion of 10 mL with 1 g or 2 g of C19-IG20%, or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants who remained asymptomatic through day 14 after infusion. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of individuals who required oxygen supplementation, any medically attended visit, hospitalisation, or ICU, and viral load reduction and viral clearance in nasopharyngeal swabs. Safety was assessed as the proportion of patients with adverse events. The trial was terminated early due to a lack of potential benefit in the target population in a planned interim analysis conducted in December 2021. ClinicalTrials.gov registry: NCT04847141. Findings: 461 individuals (mean age 39.6 years [SD 12.8]) were randomized and received the intervention within a mean of 3.1 (SD 1.27) days from a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. In the prespecified modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only participants who received a subcutaneous infusion, the primary outcome occurred in 59.9% (91/152) of participants receiving 1 g C19-IG20%, 64.7% (99/153) receiving 2 g, and 63.5% (99/156) receiving placebo (difference in proportions 1 g C19-IG20% vs. placebo, −3.6%; 95% CI -14.6% to 7.3%, p = 0.53; 2 g C19-IG20% vs placebo, 1.1%; −9.6% to 11.9%, p = 0.85). None of the secondary clinical efficacy endpoints or virological endpoints were significantly different between study groups. Adverse event rate was similar between groups, and no severe or life-threatening adverse events related to investigational product infusion were reported. Interpretation: Our findings suggested that administration of subcutaneous human hyperimmune immunoglobulin C19-IG20% to asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection was safe but did not prevent development of symptomatic COVID-19. Funding: Grifols