Stroke management during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: experience from three regions of the north east of Italy (Veneto, Friuli-Venezia-Giulia, Trentino-Alto-Adige)

Background: Efficiency of care chain response and hospital reactivity were and are challenged for stroke acute care management during the pandemic period of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in North-Eastern Italy (Veneto, Friuli-Venezia-Giulia, Trentino-Alto-Adige), counting 7,193,880 inhabitants (ISTAT), with consequences in acute treatment for patients with ischemic stroke. Methods: We conducted a retrospective data collection of patients admitted to stroke units eventually treated with thrombolysis and thrombectomy, ranging from January to May 2020 from the beginning to the end of the main first pandemic period of COVID-19 in Italy. The primary endpoint was the number of patients arriving to these stroke units, and secondary endpoints were the number of thrombolysis and/or thrombectomy. Chi-square analysis was used on all patients; furthermore, patients were divided into two cohorts (pre-lockdown and lockdown periods) and the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test differences on admission and reperfusive therapies. Results: In total, 2536 patients were included in 22 centers. There was a significant decrease of admissions in April compared to January. Furthermore, we observed a significant decrease of thrombectomy during the lockdown period, while thrombolysis rate was unaffected in the same interval across all centers. Conclusions: Our study confirmed a decrease in admission rate of stroke patients in a large area of northern Italy during the lockdown period, especially during the first dramatic phase. Overall, there was no decrease in thrombolysis rate, confirming an effect of emergency care system for stroke patients. Instead, the significant decrease in thrombectomy rate during lockdown addresses some considerations of local and regional stroke networks during COVID-19 pandemic evolution

Acute revascularization treatments for ischemic stroke in the Stroke Units of Triveneto, northeast Italy: time to treatment and functional outcomes

: It is not known whether the current territorial organization for acute revascularization treatments in ischemic stroke patients guarantees similar time to treatment and functional outcomes among different levels of institutional stroke care. We aimed to assess the impact of time to treatment on functional outcomes in ischemic stroke patients who received intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) alone, bridging (IVT plus thrombectomy), or primary thrombectomy in level 1 and level 2 Stroke Units (SUs) in Triveneto, a geographical macroarea in Northeast of Italy. We conducted an analysis of data prospectively collected from 512 consecutive ischemic stroke patients who received IVT and/or mechanical thrombectomy in 25 SUs from September 17th to December 9th 2018. The favorable outcome measures were mRS score 0-1 and 0-2 at 3 months. The unfavorable outcome measures were mRS score 3-5 and death at 3 months. We estimated separately the possible association of each variable for time to treatment (onset-to-door, door-to-needle, onset-to-needle, door-to-groin puncture, needle-to-groin puncture, and onset-to-groin puncture) with 3-month outcome measures by calculating the odds ratios (ORs) with two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) after adjustment for pre-defined variables and variables with a probability value ≤ 0.10 in the univariate analysis for each outcome measure. Distribution of acute revascularization treatments was different between level 1 and level 2 SUs (p < 0.001). Among 182 patients admitted to level 1 SUs (n = 16), treatments were IVT alone in 164 (90.1%), bridging in 12 (6.6%), and primary thrombectomy in 6 (3.3%) patients. Among 330 patients admitted to level 2 SUs (n = 9), treatments were IVT alone in 219 (66.4%), bridging in 74 (22.4%), and primary thrombectomy in 37 (11.2%) patients. Rates of excellent outcome (51.4% vs 45.9%), favorable outcome (60.1% vs 58.7%), unfavorable outcome (33.3% vs 33.8%), and death (9.8% vs 11.3%) at 3 months were similar between level 1 and 2 SUs. No significant association was found between time to IVT alone (onset-to-door, door-to-needle, and onset-to-needle) and functional outcomes. After adjustment, door-to-needle time ≤ 60 min (OR 4.005, 95% CI 1.232-13.016), shorter door-to-groin time (OR 0.991, 95% CI 0.983-0.999), shorter needle-to-groin time (OR 0.986, 95% CI 0.975-0.997), and shorter onset-to-groin time (OR 0.994, 95% CI 0.988-1.000) were associated with mRS 0-1. Shorter door-to-groin time (OR 0.991, 95% CI 0.984-0.998), door-to-groin time ≤ 90 min (OR 12.146, 95% CI 2.193-67.280), shorter needle-to-groin time (OR 0.983, 95% CI 0.972-0.995), and shorter onset-to-groin time (OR 0.993, 95% CI 0.987-0.999) were associated with mRS 0-2. Longer door-to-groin time (OR 1.007, 95% CI 1.001-1.014) and longer needle-to-groin time (OR 1.019, 95% CI 1.005-1.034) were associated with mRS 3-5, while door-to-groin time ≤ 90 min (OR 0.229, 95% CI 0.065-0.808) was inversely associated with mRS 3-5. Longer onset-to-needle time (OR 1.025, 95% CI 1.002-1.048) was associated with death. Times to treatment influenced the 3-month outcomes in patients treated with thrombectomy (bridging or primary). A revision of the current territorial organization for acute stroke treatments in Triveneto is needed to reduce transfer time and to increase the proportion of patients transferred from a level 1 SU to a level 2 SU to perform thrombectomy

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2) : a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86-1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91-1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable