Almost 40% of stroke patients have a poor outcome at 3 months after the index event. Predictors for stroke outcome in the early acute phase may help to tailor stroke treatment. Infection and inflammation are considered to influence stroke outcome. In a prospective multicenter study in Germany and Spain, including 486 patients with acute ischemic stroke, we used multivariable regression analysis to investigate the association of poor outcome with monocytic HLA-DR (mHLA-DR) expression, interleukin 6 (IL-6), interleukin 10 (IL-10), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) and lipopolysaccharide-binding protein (LBP) as markers for immunodepression, inflammation and infection. Outcome was assessed at 3 months after stroke via a structured telephone interview using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). Poor outcome was defined as a mRS score of 3 or higher which included death. Furthermore, a time-to-event analysis for death within 3 months was performed. Three-month outcome data was available for 391 patients. Female sex, older age, diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation, stroke-associated pneumonia (SAP) and higher National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score as well as lower mHLA-DR levels, higher IL-6 and LBP-levels at day 1 were associated with poor outcome at 3 months in bivariate analysis. Furthermore, multivariable analysis revealed that lower mHLA-DR expression was associated with poor outcome. Female sex, older age, atrial fibrillation, SAP, higher NIHSS score, lower mHLA-DR expression and higher IL-6 levels were associated with shorter survival time in bivariate analysis. In multivariable analysis, SAP and higher IL-6 levels on day 1 were associated with shorter survival time. SAP, lower mHLA-DR-expression and higher IL-6 levels on day one are associated with poor outcome and shorter survival time at 3 months after stroke onset. www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01079728 , March 3, 2010.

Background and Purpose: Poststroke delirium (PSD) is an independent predictor of unfavorable outcome. Despite its individual and socioeconomic burden, its frequency, clinical course, and routine detection remain unresolved. This study aimed to assess psychometric properties of established delirium screening tools and investigate the natural course of PSD. Methods: This study investigated patients presenting with high-risk transient ischemic attacks or ischemic stroke within 24 hours during a 3-month period. Twice-daily screenings for PSD were done using the confusion assessment method, nursing delirium scale, and rapid delirium assessment, and evaluated for noninferiority against Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition criteria. We investigated demographic and stroke characteristics as predictors of PSD, neurological deficits as predictors of false screening results, and conducted a simulation study to estimate the best timing to identify PSD. Results: We enrolled 141 patients (73.8±10.4 years of age, 61 female) with a mean National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 6.4±6.5. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition based PSD incidence was 39%, which manifested within 24 hours in 25% and 72 hours in almost all cases. The confusion assessment method was the only screening tool noninferior to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition ratings providing a sensitivity of 82% and specificity of 80%. Age (odds ratio, 1.07 [1.02–1.13] per year, P =0.004) and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (odds ratio, 1.24 [1.15–1.34] per point, P <0.001) were predictors of PSD. False-positive screening results were associated with stroke-induced disorientation (odds ratio, 6.1 [3.2–11.61], P <0.001) and neglect (odds ratio, 2.17 [1.22–3.87], P =0.008). Simulations revealed that one in 4 cases is missed with less than daily screenings. Conclusions: PSD is a common complication of stroke and transient ischemic attack. Detection is challenged by confounding effects such as focal neurological deficits and the necessity for at least daily screenings. Future studies are required to investigate implementation of these findings in clinical routine. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT03930719.

Background: Ten to thirty percent of stroke patients suffer from post-stroke delirium. This leads to a longer hospital stay and increased mortality. Therefore, early detection and treatment are needed. All established delirium screening tools require some degree of language function. We sought to investigate whether the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) is suitable for delirium screening in patients with post-stroke aphasia. Methods: A prospective cohort study was carried out in adult patients consecutively admitted to the Stroke Unit of University Hospital Tuebingen, between July 2017 and December 2018. The index test, ICDSC, was compared with the DSM-V diagnostic criteria as reference standard. Measures of diagnostic precision and the degree of agreement were obtained. Results: Three hundred and forty six patients were included in the analysis. Aphasia was present in 231 (66.8%) and absent in 115 (33.2%) patients. Delirium was present in 83 out of 231 (36%) patients with aphasia and 32 out of 115 (27.8%) patients without aphasia (p = 0.132). For patients without aphasia, sensitivity and specificity at the established cut-off value of ≥ 4 points were 100% and 78%, respectively. For patients with aphasia, the test demonstrated inferior performance, with a sensitivity and specificity of 98% and 55%, respectively. It was necessary to increase the cut-off value to ≥ 5 points. Through this, sensitivity was 90% (95% CI, 81.9–95.8%) and specificity was 75% (95% CI, 67.2–81.8%). The degree of agreement to the DSM-V criteria was “substantial” (Cohen's κ = 0.61). Conclusion: For the purpose of delirium screening in patients with aphasia, increasing the ICDSC cut-off value to ≥ 5 points enables effective screening. Further studies are necessary to characterize post-stroke delirium.

Background and purpose: Reperfusion treatment in patients presenting with large vessel occlusion (LVO) and minor neurological deficits is still a matter of debate. We aimed to compare minor stroke patients treated with endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) and intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) or IVT alone.Methods: Patients enrolled in the German Stroke Registry–Endovascular Treatment (GSR‐ET) and the Safe Implementation of Treatments in Stroke–International Stroke Thrombolysis Registry (SITS‐ISTR) between June 2015 and December 2019 were analyzed. Minor stroke was defined as National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score ≤5, and LVO as occlusion of the internal carotid, carotid‐T, middle cerebral, basilar, vertebral or posterior cerebral arteries. GSR‐ET and SITS‐ISTR IVT‐treated patients were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity‐score (PS) matching. The primary outcome was good functional outcome at 3 months (modified Rankin Scale score 0–2).Results: A total of 272 GSR‐ET patients treated with EVT and IVT (age 68.6 ± 14.0 years, 43.4% female, NIHSS score 4 [interquartile range 2–5]) were compared to 272 IVT‐treated SITS‐ISTR patients (age 69.4 ± 13.7, 43.4% female, NIHSS score 4 [2–5]). Good functional outcome was seen in 77.0% versus 82.9% (p = 0.119), mortality in 5.9% versus 7.9% (p = 0.413), and intracranial hemorrhage in 8.8% versus 12.5% (p = 0.308) of patients in the GSR‐ET versus the SITS‐ISTR IVT group, respectively. In a second PS‐matched analysis, 624 GSR‐ET patients (IVT rate 56.7%) and 624 SITS‐ISTR patients (IVT rate 100%), good outcome was more often observed in the SITS‐ISTR patients (68.2% vs. 80.9%; p < 0.001), and IVT independently predicted good outcome (odds ratio 2.16, 95% confidence interval 1.43–3.28).Conclusions: Our study suggests similar effectiveness of IVT alone compared to EVT with or without IVT in minor stroke patients. There is an urgent need for randomized controlled trials on this topic.

Introduction: Delirium is recognized as a severe complication of coronavirus-disease-2019 (COVID-19). COVID-19-associated delirium has been linked to worse patient outcomes and is considered to be of multifactorial origin. Here we sought to evaluate the incidence and risk factors of delirium in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, along with its impact on clinical outcome. Methods: Consecutive adult COVID-19 patients admitted to a tertiary academic referral hospital between March 1^st and December 31^st, 2020 were included. Potential risk factors for delirium were evaluated, including: age, gender, disease severity (as per the highest WHO grading reached during admission), laboratory parameters for infection and renal function (as per their most extreme values), and presence of comorbidities. To assess the relative strength of risk factors for predicting the occurrence of delirium, we performed a random-forest survival analysis. Results: 347 patients with positive COVID-19 PCR test and median age 68.2 [IQR 55.5, 80.5] years were included. Of those, 79 patients (22.8%) developed delirium, 81 (23.3%) were transferred to ICU, 58 (16.7%) died. 163 (73.8%) patients were discharged home, 13 (5.9%) to another hospital, 32 (14.5%) to nursing homes, 13 (5.9%) to rehabilitation with an overall median admission-to-discharge time of 53 [IQR 14, 195] days. The strongest predictors for the occurrence of delirium were blood urea nitrogen (minimal depth value (MD): 3.33), age (MD: 3.75), disease severity (as captured by WHO grading; MD: 3.93), leukocyte count (MD: 4.22), the presence of a neurodegenerative history (MD: 4.43), ferritin (MD: 4.46) and creatinine (MD: 4.59) levels. Conclusion: The risk of delirium in COVID-19 can be stratified based on COVID-19 disease severity and–similar to delirium associated with other respiratory infections–the factors advanced age, neurodegenerative disease history, and presence of elevated infection and renal-retention parameters. Screening for these risk factors may facilitate early identification of patients at high-risk for COVID-19-associated delirium.