Stroke network performance during the first COVID-19 pandemic stage: A meta-analysis based on stroke network models.
International Journal of Stroke · 2021-08-25 · Meta-analysis
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effect of the COVID pandemic on stroke network performance is unclear, particularly with consideration of drip&ship vs. mothership models. AIMS: We systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed variations in stroke admissions, rate and timing of reperfusion treatments during the first wave COVID pandemic vs. the pre-pandemic timeframe depending on stroke network model adopted. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: The systematic review followed registered protocol (PROSPERO-CRD42020211535), PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL until 9 October 2020 for studies reporting variations in ischemic stroke admissions, treatment rates, and timing in COVID (first wave) vs. control-period. Primary outcome was the weekly admission incidence rate ratio (IRR = admissions during COVID-period/admissions during control-period). Secondary outcomes were (i) changes in rate of reperfusion treatments and (ii) time metrics for pre- and in-hospital phase. Data were pooled using random-effects models, comparing mothership vs. drip&ship model. Overall, 29 studies were included in quantitative synthesis (n = 212,960). COVID-period was associated with a significant reduction in stroke admission rates (IRR = 0.69, 95%CI = 0.61-0.79), with higher relative presentation of large vessel occlusion (risk ratio (RR) = 1.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.24-2.12). Proportions of patients treated with endovascular treatment increased (RR = 1.14, 95%CI = 1.02-1.28). Intravenous thrombolysis decreased overall (IRR = 0.72, 95%CI = 0.54-0.96) but not in the mothership model (IRR = 0.81, 95%CI = 0.43-1.52). Onset-to-door time was longer for the drip&ship in COVID-period compared to the control-period (+32 min, 95%CI = 0-64). Door-to-scan was longer in COVID-period (+5 min, 95%CI = 2-7). Door-to-needle and door-to-groin were similar in COVID-period and control-period. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a 35% drop in stroke admissions during the first pandemic wave, proportions of patients receiving reperfusion and time-metrics were not inferior to control-period. Mothership preserved the weekly rate of intravenous thrombolysis and the onset-to-door timing to pre-pandemic standards.
Abstract © the authors or publisher, via PubMed. Reuse and removal
Tags
COVID-19 pandemic · Time intervals
Related articles
- Beyond the freedom to refuse patient: A retrospective comparative study of emergency transportation during the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan. (PLoS One, 2026)
- Elimination of Emergency Department Ambulance Divert during the COVID-19 Pandemic Was Not Associated with an Increase in the Average Number of Ambulance Arrivals per Day. (Prehosp Emerg Care, 2024)
- Management of emergency department diversion during the COVID-19 pandemic and disaster periods. (Am J Disaster Med, 2022)
- Extension of Selection Time for the Emergency Destination of Patients with a Fever Due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Difference-in-differences Analysis. (Intern Med, 2023)
- Effect of Designating Emergency Medical Centers for Critical Care on Emergency Medical Service Systems during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective Observational Study. (J Clin Med, 2022)
- Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on stroke response times: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (J Neurointerv Surg, 2022)