MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407316231 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0316734

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outcomes of acute ischemic stroke patients treated with endovascular therapy: A multicenter Canadian study

2025· article· en· W4407316231 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shenghua Zhu, Ammar Alam, Rebecca E. Thornhill, Vered Tsehmaister-Abitbul, Grant Stotts, Hailey Pettem, Richard I. Aviv, Ronit Agid, Aleksandra Pikula, Jai Shankar, Geneviève Milot, Brian van Adel, Samuel Yip, Manraj K.S. Heran, Robert Fahed, Fabio Settecase, Marlise P. dos Santos

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcMaster UniversityUniversité LavalToronto Western HospitalOttawa HospitalUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Ottawa
FundersStryker
KeywordsPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Medicine2019-20 coronavirus outbreakMulticenter studySevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Ischemic strokeStroke (engine)Emergency medicineAcute strokeInternal medicineIntensive care medicineVirologyRandomized controlled trialTissue plasminogen activatorIschemiaDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to the implementation of wide-ranging institutional infection control protocols. The purpose of this study is to determine the effect of the pandemic on outcomes of large vessel occlusion (LVO) acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients treated with endovascular therapy (EVT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were obtained from prospectively collected quality improvement stroke databases at six Canadian comprehensive stroke centres from March 11, 2020 to March 11, 2021. This patient cohort was compared to pre-pandemic patients consecutively treated with EVT from March 11, 2019 to March 10, 2020. The primary outcome is a 90-day modified Rankin Score (mRS). The secondary outcomes are angiographic time metrics. RESULTS: A total of 1329 EVT patients (pre-pandemic n = 666) were included. The initial NIHSS was statistically significantly lower in the pandemic cohort. Other baseline patient characteristics were comparable between the two periods. Median (interquartile range, IQR) time from last seen normal (LSN) to emergency department (ED) (172 (68-316) vs 210 (97-382) min; p = 0.0001), LSN to puncture (235 (160-378) vs 280 (184-475); p < 0.0001), computed tomography (CT) to angiographic table (68 (44-108) vs 84 (57-125) min; p = 0.002), ED to angiographic table (65 (37-96) vs 80 (50-112) min; p = 0.001), CT to recanalization (117 (84-156) vs 130 (89-173) min; p = 0.038) and LSN to recanalization (279 (198-453) vs 327 (219-561) min; p = 0.002) were longer in the pandemic period as compared to the pre-pandemic. There were no significant differences in median time from angiographic table to arterial puncture (13 (8-19) vs 12 (9-16) min; p = 0.70) or arterial puncture to first pass (21 (14-31) vs 20 (14-30) min; p = 0.50). Patients were more likely to have favourable outcomes (mRS at 90 days score of ≤ 2) post-EVT pre-pandemic than pandemic (53% vs 44%; p = 0.02). Furthermore, analysis of the time interval from "LSN to arterial puncture" in relation to functional outcomes showed that the percentage of unfavorable outcomes increased among patients who underwent EVT within 240 minutes. Specifically, the rate of unfavorable outcomes rose from 32.9% to 42.9% (p = 0.37 for intervals under 150 minutes) and from 41.6% to 52.3% (p = 0.15 for intervals between 151 and 240 minutes) when comparing pre-pandemic to pandemic periods. However, the detrimental effect associated with the pandemic was diminished in patients who received EVT beyond 240 mins (p = 1.0). CONCLUSION: In this multicenter study involving six Canadian stroke centers, patients exhibited a higher probability of unfavorable long-term functional outcomes following EVT during the pandemic period compared to those in the pre-pandemic cohort, particularly during the first year of the pandemic.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts→French-language works237,207→