4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Management of acute ischemic stroke in patients with COVID-19 infection: Insights from an international panel

      case-report

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          A corona virus (SARS-CoV-2) has infected 986,776 persons as of April 2nd, 2020 over a period of 4 months. There is a possibility that Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection increases the risk of stroke similar to other respiratory tract infections [1]. Approximately 5% of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection suffer from stroke with over 80% of them being ischemic stroke [2]. The reported mortality is 39% in patient with stroke [2] and COVID-19 infection which is much higher than the mortality observed in patients with stroke without COVID-19 infection [3]. Medical professionals involved in evaluation and management of acute stroke patients are at risk of acquiring COVID-19 infection from suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infected patients or those who are asymptomatic carriers or in the prodromal period, or in whom neurological deficits is the first manifestation. The magnitude of risk of COVID-19 infection transmission during acute stroke patient management is not known. The time frame required to confirm the infection based on upper respiratory specimen using reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction test and at times need for repeat testing does not allow the information to be available to stroke team members at time of decision making. Members of stroke team must use basic principles targeting prevention of disease transmission including maintaining a 1-meter distance from patient (unless absolutely necessary) and use a combination of use of surgical mask gloves, gowns, goggles or face shield and handwashing. Whether a particulate filtering facepiece respirator such as N95 (United States), FFP2 (Europe), KN95 (China), P2 (Australia/New Zealand), K94 (Korea KMOEL), or DS (Japan) is necessity is not clear as stroke evaluation does not involve aerosol generating procedures [4]. However, such use may be regulated by country and institution specific standards and also depend upon availability and regional COVID-19 infection prevalence. The stroke team evaluating the patient should comprise the minimum number of medical professionals and preferably exclude those professionals who are at high-risk for severe COVID-19 infection. Telestroke is the most effective strategy to avoid transmission by not being in the same room or space where the stroke patient with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection is located. All aspects of acute stroke management can be performed via Telestroke [5]. Institutions may explore with the Ethics Committee and Institutional Review Board whether commercially available low-cost smartphone application systems can substitute in locations where Telestroke networks are not available. The high rate of mortality in COVID-19 infected patients who have multiple organ dysfunction/failure needs to be recognized and is unlikely to be influenced from acute treatment of stroke [2]. An assessment of magnitude of organ dysfunction using validated scales such as sequential organ failure assessment score maybe helpful in delineating the overall care paradigm in acute stroke patients appropriate to the expected prognosis independent of stroke related factors. Clinical evaluation and computed tomographic (CT) scan are usually supplemented by contrast-based studies such as CT angiography and CT perfusion to identify patients who are candidates for mechanical thrombectomy. Negative carrier isolator bag for patients during imaging may ensure the safety of health care providers and concurrent pulmonary imaging can identify COVID-19 pulmonary infection (Fig. 1 ). COVID-19 infection and stroke both have a relatively high risk of renal insufficiency and perhaps even higher when both occur together. Contrast exposure can precipitate acute kidney injury particularly in those with existing renal impairment which may subsequently increase the risk of death. Therefore, studies using contrast may be considered after evaluation of renal function and whether mechanical thrombectomy is even a consideration. There is limited data regarding use of intravenous (IV) thrombolysis in settings of infection [6]. Current guidelines do not support use of IV thrombolysis in patients with acute ischemic stroke and symptoms consistent with infective endocarditis because of the increased risk of intracranial hemorrhage [7]. However, in COVID-19 infected patients, a generalized pro-coagulable state similar to sepsis may exist rather than septic emboli [8]. Elevated concentration of inflammation and hypercoagulability markers such as C reactive protein and D dimers in patients with COVID-19 infection suggest an underlying hypercoagulable state. While none of these laboratory abnormalities are a contraindication to IV thrombolysis, previous studies conducted in non COVID-19 infected acute ischemic stroke patients demonstrated a higher rate of death or disability and post thrombolytic intracerebral hemorrhages in such patients [6]. Hepatic dysfunction manifesting as elevation in serum transaminases without coagulopathy or with coagulopathy (elevated prothrombin time (PT), international normalized ratio (INR), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), or reduced platelet count) can occur in patients with COVID-19 infection. Current guidelines specify certain eligibility thresholds based on elevated PT, INR, APTT, or reduced platelet counts although there is ambiguity regarding thresholds associated with greater risk or benefit with IV thrombolysis [7]. Additional tests for assessing coagulation profile such as thromboelastography and serum concentration of D dimers have been useful in sepsis and hepatic dysfunction and may be considered as needed. For patients with COVID-19 infection and other organ involvement, a detailed assessment of coagulation profile is preferable prior to decision regarding IV thrombolysis to determine risk benefit ratio. Fig. 1 Proposed workflow of hyper acute stroke care in era of COVID 19 pandemic. Abbreviations: PT: prothrombin time, INR: international normalized ratio, aPTT: activated partial thromboplastin time, TEG: thromboelastography, CT: computerized tomography, IV: intravenous, BP: blood pressure, O2: oxygen, CO2: carbon dioxide. Fig. 1 Current guidelines recommend mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke recommend that patients ≥18 years who have a causative occlusion of the internal carotid artery or proximal middle cerebral artery and can be treated within 6 h of last known normal [7]. Mechanical thrombectomy is recommended in selected acute stroke patients within 6–24 h of last known normal but requires CT perfusion or magnetic resonance imaging to identify potentially salvageable tissue [7]. In addition to patient characteristics, the time interval between symptom onset and initiation of treatment and procedure time are important determinants of benefit of procedure. In the current era of COVID-19 pandemic there will be a new challenge in triage of these patients as suspected or known COVID-19 patients cannot be transferred rapidly to angiographic suites from emergency departments or from outside hospitals due to screening and exposure reduction requirements. Interfacility transfer may require special equipment and personnel which is likely to delay the procedure. Obtaining informed consents in light of “no visitor hospital policies” may require waiver of consent or remote electronic informed consent for such procedures. Due to expected challenges, intravenous thrombolysis in an isolation ward has been recommended preferentially in patients with acute myocardial infarction. In patients selected for mechanical thrombectomy, intubation, mechanical ventilation, and general anesthesia may be required in a relatively large proportion (if not all) of patients due to underlying COVID-19 related respiratory insufficiency and stroke related neurological deficits, and to reduce aerosol exposure and avoid unplanned intubation within angiographic unit. Tracheobroncholar sample may be acquired at time of intubation to confirm patient's diagnosis and infectious potential. Due to the additional precautions required in endotracheal intubation, open suctioning, and manual ventilation before intubation in COVID-19 infected patients, the intubation is best performed prior to arrival to the angiographic suite by an experienced team using appropriate protective gear and special equipment. Strict parameters for systolic blood pressure or mean arterial pressure and end tidal carbon dioxide need to be used to reduce the risk of death or disability in patients who require intubation and mechanical ventilation prior to mechanical thrombectomy in previous reports [9]. All health care professionals within the angiographic suite should wear surgical/medical masks, gloves, gown, and eye protection, such as a face shield or safety goggles at the minimum and a particulate filtering facepiece respirator if required. There may be limitations in interpersonal communication and technical comments imposed by personal protective equipment. Mechanical thrombectomy procedures are performed in radiographic-fluoroscopic room, usually equipped with biplane floor-mounted and ceiling-mounted C-arm angiography system with two flat detectors mounted on a motorized rotating turntable. The patients are placed on a floor-mounted cantilevered carbon-fiber tabletop covered with special contoured foam mattress. The transmission of SARS-CoV-2 virus from contaminated environmental surfaces and non-critical equipment to health care workers and other patients is a serious concern because SARS-CoV-2 can survive in aerosol up to 3 h, on copper up to 4 h, on cardboard up to 24 h, on stainless steel metal and plastic surface up to 72 h [10]. Use of non-porous sterile coverings on all areas in procedure field is the currently acceptable procedure. A policy that identifies the principles of decontamination and disinfectants (different concentration and exposure time required for elimination of SARS-CoV-2 virus) for various categories of contaminated items (critical items from blood stream, semi-critical items from mucous membranes, and noncritical items from intact skin) and surfaces (high touch and low touch) when a patient with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection undergoes mechanical thrombectomy. A protocol for terminal clean must be developed (if already not available) reduce and eliminate microbial contamination to avoid transfer of microorganisms to the next patient. Strategies to reduce anticipated longer procedure time due to new precautionary measures in acute ischemic patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy need to be considered at institutional level. A negative-pressure rooms with anterooms for patients with airborne viral diseases is recommended with or without portable, industrial-grade high efficiency particulate air filter units. Although it is preferable to use negative pressure angiographic suites for mechanical thrombectomy, such angiographic suites do not exist in most institutions. Comprehensive and designated stroke centers must anticipate new challenges because of mismatch between demand and resources. A deviation of resources towards service lines responsible for management of patients with COVID-19 infection may occur because of concurrent existence of other specialties in comprehensive and designated stroke centers. The high volume of elective neuroendovascular procedures incomprehensive stroke centers may require cancellation and deferral to preserve resources for acute stroke management. Transitional Care Units may be required to reduce the risk of transmission in post procedure period. Prospective registries may help understand whether there are differences in stroke risk, manifestations, response to treatment strategies, and outcomes in patients with COVID-19 infection.

          Related collections

          Most cited references5

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Surgical mask vs N95 respirator for preventing influenza among health care workers: a randomized trial.

          Data about the effectiveness of the surgical mask compared with the N95 respirator for protecting health care workers against influenza are sparse. Given the likelihood that N95 respirators will be in short supply during a pandemic and not available in many countries, knowing the effectiveness of the surgical mask is of public health importance. To compare the surgical mask with the N95 respirator in protecting health care workers against influenza. Noninferiority randomized controlled trial of 446 nurses in emergency departments, medical units, and pediatric units in 8 tertiary care Ontario hospitals. Assignment to either a fit-tested N95 respirator or a surgical mask when providing care to patients with febrile respiratory illness during the 2008-2009 influenza season. The primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed influenza measured by polymerase chain reaction or a 4-fold rise in hemagglutinin titers. Effectiveness of the surgical mask was assessed as noninferiority of the surgical mask compared with the N95 respirator. The criterion for noninferiority was met if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the reduction in incidence (N95 respirator minus surgical group) was greater than -9%. Between September 23, 2008, and December 8, 2008, 478 nurses were assessed for eligibility and 446 nurses were enrolled and randomly assigned the intervention; 225 were allocated to receive surgical masks and 221 to N95 respirators. Influenza infection occurred in 50 nurses (23.6%) in the surgical mask group and in 48 (22.9%) in the N95 respirator group (absolute risk difference, -0.73%; 95% CI, -8.8% to 7.3%; P = .86), the lower confidence limit being inside the noninferiority limit of -9%. Among nurses in Ontario tertiary care hospitals, use of a surgical mask compared with an N95 respirator resulted in noninferior rates of laboratory-confirmed influenza. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00756574
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            High Plasma D-Dimer Indicates Unfavorable Outcome of Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients Receiving Intravenous Thrombolysis

            Background: D-dimer is a fibrin degradation product and a possible marker of thromboembolic events. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between D-dimer levels and outcome in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients receiving intravenous thrombolysis. Methods: This retrospective study included AIS patients who received intravenous thrombolysis with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) and provided plasma D-dimer level within 24 h after stroke onset during 2009 and 2014 at a single medical center. Unfavorable outcome was defined as modified Rankin scale ≥3 at 3 months after stroke. Symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) was defined as a deterioration of at least 4 points on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale within 36 h post thrombolysis. Results: Of 347 patients receiving intravenous rt-PA, 159 (mean age 67.6 ± 13.1 year, 59.7% male) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In univariate analysis, patients with unfavorable outcome (n = 79) had significantly higher levels of D-dimer than those with favorable outcome (median ln D-dimer = 1.4 vs. 0.7 μg/ml, p < 0.001). After adjustment for clinical variables, a higher level of D-dimer remained significantly associated with an unfavorable outcome (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.27-2.86, p = 0.002) and the occurrence of symptomatic ICH (OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.15-7.70, p = 0.025). Conclusion: The D-dimer level within 24 h after stroke onset can be an early outcome indicator in AIS patients receiving rt-PA therapy.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Sedation vs. Intubation for Endovascular Stroke TreAtment (SIESTA) – A Randomized Monocentric Trial

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Prof.
                Role: Prof.
                Role: Prof.
                Role: Prof.
                Role: Prof.
                Role: Prof.
                Role: Prof.
                Role: Prof.
                Role: Prof.
                Role: Prof.
                Role: Prof.
                Role: Prof.
                Role: Prof.
                Role: Prof.
                Role: Prof.
                Journal
                Am J Emerg Med
                Am J Emerg Med
                The American Journal of Emergency Medicine
                Published by Elsevier Inc.
                0735-6757
                1532-8171
                11 May 2020
                11 May 2020
                Affiliations
                [a ]Zeenat Qureshi Stroke Institute, Department of Neurology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, United States of America
                [b ]Department of Neurology, Kasralainy School of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
                [c ]Department Of Neurology, National Neurosciences Institute, King Fahad Medical City, P.O. Box 59046, Riyadh 11525, Saudi Arabia
                [d ]Clinic of Neurology, Ankara Training and Research Hospitals, Ankara, Turkey
                [e ]Clinical Neurology Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences Shiraz, Iran
                [f ]Department of Neurosciences, Azienda Ospedaliera Carlo Poma Mantova, Italy
                [g ]Department of Neurology, University of Missouri, MO, United States of America
                [h ]Department of Neurology, Kartal Dr. Lutfi Kirdar Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
                [i ]Graduate Institute of Clinical Medical Science, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan
                [j ]Department of Neurology, Creighton University Medical Center/CHI Health, Omaha, NE, United States of America
                [k ]Department of Neurosurgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
                [l ]Interventional Stroke and Cerebrovascular Disease Treatment Center, Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology, Warsaw, Poland
                [m ]Department of Neurology, Yeungnam University School of Medicine, 317-1 Daemyeong-dong, Nam-gu, Daegu 705-717, Republic of Korea
                [n ]Pakistan Emirates Military Hospital (J.L.), Rawalpindi, Pakistan
                [o ]Department of Neurology and Stroke Centre, Bichat University Hospital, INSERM U-698, Paris-Diderot University, 46, rue Henri Huchard, 75018 Paris, France
                [p ]Stroke & Neurointervention Artemis Hospitals, Gurugram, Haryana 122001, India
                [q ]Michigan State University, Hurley Medical Center, Flint, MI, United States of America
                [r ]Department of Neurology, Klinikum Frankfurt Höchst, Frankfurt, Germany
                [s ]National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, 6-1 Kishibe-Shimmachi, Suita, Osaka 564-8565, Japan
                [t ]Department of Neurology, Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain
                [u ]Servicio de Neurología del Hospital Universitario Dr. José Eleuterio González de la Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico
                [v ]Department of Neuroanatomy and Neurology, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil
                [w ]Beverly Hills Pain Institute and Neurology, Beverly Hills, CA, United States of America
                [x ]Tiantan Comprehensive Stroke Center, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. vbjani@ 123456yahoo.com
                Article
                S0735-6757(20)30356-9
                10.1016/j.ajem.2020.05.018
                7211609
                896dea8d-f4dd-4fff-ba16-8a83d127d381
                © 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                : 14 April 2020
                : 6 May 2020
                Categories
                Article

                corona virus,acute stroke,mechanical thrombectomy,thrombolysis,ischemic stroke,covid-19

                Comments

                Comment on this article