Loading…

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on reperfusion therapy for acute ischemic stroke patients in Huizhou City, China

Background and purpose The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the reperfusion therapy for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients. Huizhou City utilized its experience with the SARS and MERS breakouts to establish a reperfusion treatment program for AIS patients. Method This is a retrospective study on 8 c...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Neurological sciences 2021-02, Vol.42 (2), p.467-473
Main Authors: Luo, Weiliang, Li, Jiming, Li, Zhuqin, Luo, Xuanwen, Chen, Minrui, Cai, Chunsheng
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background and purpose The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the reperfusion therapy for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients. Huizhou City utilized its experience with the SARS and MERS breakouts to establish a reperfusion treatment program for AIS patients. Method This is a retrospective study on 8 certified stroke hospitals in Huizhou City from January 2020 to May 2020. We analyzed the number of AIS patients with reperfusion therapy, stroke type (anterior/posterior circulation stroke), modes of transport to hospital, NIHSS score, onset to door time (ODT), door to needle time (DNT), and door to puncture time (DPT). The analysis was compared with baseline data from the same time period in 2019. Result In 2020, the number of AIS patients receiving reperfusion therapy decreased (315 vs. 377), NIHSS score increased [8 (4, 15) vs. 7 [ (1, 2)], P  = 0.024], ODT increased [126 (67.5, 210.0) vs. 120.0 (64.0, 179.0), P  = 0.032], and DNT decreased [40 (32.5, 55) vs. 48 (36, 59), P  = 0.003]. DPT did not change. Seventy percent of AIS patients indicated self-visit as their main mode of transport to the hospital. In both periods, mild stroke patients were more likely to self-visit than utilize emergency systems [2019: 152 (57.6%) vs. 20 (45.6%), P  = 0.034; 2020: 123 (56.9%) vs. 5 (14.7%), P  
ISSN:1590-1874
1590-3478
DOI:10.1007/s10072-020-04938-w