Cargando…
Stroke Patients’ Characteristics and Clinical Outcomes: A Pre-Post COVID-19 Comparison Study
Background and Objectives: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused significant disruption to established medical care systems globally. Thus, this study was aimed to compare the admission and outcome variables such as number of patient and its severity, acute recanalisation therapy g...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8159102/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34069433 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina57050507 |
Sumario: | Background and Objectives: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused significant disruption to established medical care systems globally. Thus, this study was aimed to compare the admission and outcome variables such as number of patient and its severity, acute recanalisation therapy given pre-post COVID-19 at a primary stroke centre located in Malaysia. Methods: This cross-sectional hospital-based study included adult ischaemic stroke patients. Variables of the study included the number of ischaemic stroke patients, the proportions of recanalisation therapies, stroke severity during admission based on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, functional outcome at discharge based on the modified Rankin Scale, and relevant workflow metrics. We compared the outcome between two six-month periods, namely the pre-COVID-19 period (March 2019 to September 2019) and the COVID-19 period (March 2020 to September 2020). Results: There were 131 and 156 patients, respectively, from the pre-COVID-19 period and the COVID-19 period. The median door-to-scan time and the median door-to-reperfusion time were both significantly shorter in the COVID-19 period (24.5 min versus 12.0 min, p = 0.047) and (93.5 min versus 60.0 min, p = 0.015), respectively. There were also significantly more patients who received intravenous thrombolysis (7.6% versus 17.3%, p = 0.015) and mechanical thrombectomy (0.8% versus 6.4%, p = 0.013) in the COVID-19 period, respectively. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic may not have caused disruptions of acute stroke care in our primary stroke centre. Our data indicated that the number of ischaemic stroke events remained stable, with a significant increase of recanalisation therapies and better in-hospital workflow metrics during the COVID-19 pandemic period. However, we would like to highlight that the burden of COVID-19 cases in the study area was very low. Therefore, the study may not have captured the true burden (and relevant delays in stroke patient management) during the COVID-19 pandemic. The effect of the pandemic crisis is ongoing and both pre-hospital and in-hospital care systems must continue to provide optimal, highly time-dependent stroke care services. |
---|