Background: As of 8 April 2021, a total of 2.9 million people have died with or from the coronavirus infection causing COVID-19 (Corona Virus Disease 2019). On 29 January 2021, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved a COVID-19 vaccine developed by Oxford University and AstraZeneca (AZD1222, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, COVID-19 vaccine AstraZeneca, Vaxzevria, Covishield). While the vaccine prevents severe course of and death from COVID-19, the observation of pulmonary, abdominal, and intracranial venous thromboembolic events has raised concerns. Objective: To describe the clinical manifestations and the concerning management of patients with cranial venous sinus thrombosis following first exposure to the “COVID-19 vaccine AstraZeneca”. Methods: Patient files, laboratory findings, and diagnostic imaging results, and endovascular interventions of three concerning patients were evaluated in retrospect. Results: Three women with intracranial venous sinus thrombosis after their first vaccination with “COVID-19 vaccine AstraZeneca” were encountered. Patient #1 was 22 years old and developed headaches four days after the vaccination. On day 7, she experienced a generalized epileptic seizure. Patient #2 was 46 years old. She presented with severe headaches, hemianopia to the right, and mild aphasia 13 days after the vaccination. MRI showed a left occipital intracerebral hemorrhage. Patient #3 was 36 years old and presented 17 days after the vaccination with acute somnolence and right-hand hemiparesis. The three patients were diagnosed with extensive venous sinus thrombosis. They were managed by heparinization and endovascular recanalization of their venous sinuses. They shared similar findings: elevated levels of D-dimers, platelet factor 4 antiplatelet antibodies, corona spike protein antibodies, combined with thrombocytopenia. Under treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin, platelet counts normalized within several days. Conclusion: Early observations insinuate that the exposure to the “COVID-19 vaccine AstraZeneca” might trigger the expression of antiplatelet antibodies, resulting in a condition with thrombocytopenia and venous thrombotic events (e.g., intracranial venous sinus thrombosis). These patients’ treatment should address the thrombo-embolic manifestations, the coagulation disorder, and the underlying immunological phenomena.

Objective: Migrainous infarction is considered a rare complication of migraine. Although several studies reported silent brain lesions on neuroimaging in patients with migraine with aura, knowledge about lesion patterns in acute migrainous infarction is scarce. We investigated clinical and MRI characteristics in a series of patients with migraine-associated acute cerebral ischemia. Methods: Seventeen patients among 8,137 stroke patients over an 11-year period were included. All had undergone a dedicated stroke workup including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and a detailed assessment of clinical features and of vascular risk factors. Results: The majority of patients presented with prolonged aura symptoms (visual aura 82.3%, sensory dysfunction 41.2%, and aphasia 5.9%; median NIH Stroke Scale score 2). Presentation at hospital was significantly delayed after symptom onset (mean 33 hours). A total of 70.6% had acute ischemic lesions in the posterior circulation; the middle cerebral artery territory was affected in 29.4%. Small lesions were present in 64.7%; multiple lesions were found in 41.2%. No overlapping ischemic lesions of different vascular territories were found. The prevalence of a patent foramen ovale was high (64.7%). Conclusions: This study supports previous observations that migrainous infarction mostly occurs in the posterior circulation, and in younger women with a history of migraine with aura. Acute ischemic lesions were often multiple and located in distinct arterial territories. As there were no overlapping ischemic lesions, hemodynamic compromise during the development of migraine is unlikely the cause of infarction. Differentiation between migrainous infarction and prolonged migraine aura is difficult and associated with delayed admission of patients.

Introduction: The treatment of neuropathic and central pain still remains a major challenge. Thalamic deep brain stimulation (DBS) involving various target structures is a therapeutic option which has received increased re-interest. Beneficial results have been reported in several more recent smaller studies, however, there is a lack of prospective studies on larger series providing long term outcomes. Methods: Forty patients with refractory neuropathic and central pain syndromes underwent stereotactic bifocal implantation of DBS electrodes in the centromedian–parafascicular (CM–Pf) and the ventroposterolateral (VPL) or ventroposteromedial (VPM) nucleus contralateral to the side of pain. Electrodes were externalized for test stimulation for several days. Outcome was assessed with five specific VAS pain scores (maximum, minimum, average pain, pain at presentation, allodynia). Results: The mean age at surgery was 53.5 years, and the mean duration of pain was 8.2 years. During test stimulation significant reductions of all five pain scores was achieved with either CM–Pf or VPL/VPM stimulation. Pacemakers were implanted in 33/40 patients for chronic stimulation for whom a mean follow-up of 62.8 months (range 3–180 months) was available. Of these, 18 patients had a follow-up beyond four years. Hardware related complications requiring secondary surgeries occurred in 11/33 patients. The VAS maximum pain score was improved by ≥50% in 8/18, and by ≥30% in 11/18 on long term follow-up beyond four years, and the VAS average pain score by ≥50% in 10/18, and by ≥30% in 16/18. On a group level, changes in pain scores remained statistically significant over time, however, there was no difference when comparing the efficacy of CM–Pf versus VPL/VPM stimulation. The best results were achieved in patients with facial pain, poststroke/central pain (except thalamic pain), or brachial plexus injury, while patients with thalamic lesions had the least benefit. Conclusion: Thalamic DBS is a useful treatment option in selected patients with severe and medically refractory pain.