Ischemic stroke in patients that recover from COVID-19: Comparisons to historical stroke prior to COVID-19 or stroke in patients with active COVID-19 infection

11Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background and purpose Understanding the relationship of COVID-19 to stroke is important. We compare characteristics of pre-pandemic historical stroke (Pre-C), cases in acute COVID infection (Active-C) and in patients who have recovered from COVID-19 infection (Post-C). Methods We interrogated the Qatar stroke database for all stroke admissions between Jan 2019 and Feb 2020 (Pre-C) to Active-C (Feb2020-Feb2021) and Post-C to determine how COVID-19 affected ischemic stroke sub-types, clinical course, and outcomes prior to, during and post-pandemic peak. We used the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) to measure outcome at 90-days (mRS 0–2 good recovery and mRS 3–6 as poor recovery). For the current analysis, we compared the clinical features and prognosis in patients with confirmed acute ischemic stroke. Results There were 1413 cases admitted (pre-pandemic: 1324, stroke in COVID-19: 46 and recovered COVID-19 stroke: 43). Patients with Active-C were significantly younger, had more severe symptoms, fever on presentation, more ICU admissions and poor stroke recovery at discharge when compared to Pre-C and Post-C. Large vessel disease and cardioembolic disease was significantly more frequent in Active-C compared to PRE-C or post-C. Conclusions Stroke in Post-C has characteristics similar to Pre-C with no evidence of lasting effects of the virus on the short-term. However, Active-C is a more serious disease and tends to be more severe and have a poor prognosis.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Akhtar, N., Abid, F., Singh, R., Kamran, S., Imam, Y., Al-Jerdi, S., … Shuaib, A. (2022). Ischemic stroke in patients that recover from COVID-19: Comparisons to historical stroke prior to COVID-19 or stroke in patients with active COVID-19 infection. PLoS ONE, 17(6 June). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270413

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free