The Edmonton-based mobile stroke unit (MSU), which transports patients to the University of Alberta Hospital (UAH), enrolled patients in the Intravenous Tenecteplase Compared with Alteplase for Acute Ischemic Stroke (AcT) trial. We examined the feasibility of trial enrollment in MSU, its impact on acute stroke workflow metrics and functional outcomes at 90–120 days.

In this post hoc analysis, patients were divided into three groups based on enrollment site: MSU (n = 43), UAH (n = 273) and non-UAH (n = 1261). All patients were enrolled with a deferred consent process. The primary outcome for this analysis was the feasibility of enrollment defined as the proportion of patients receiving intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) during the study period who were enrolled in the trial. Multiple linear and binary logistic regression was used to evaluate the adjusted effect of the study groups on acute stroke workflow metrics and functional outcomes at 90–120 days.

100% of eligible IVT-treated patients in the MSU during the study period were enrolled in the AcT trial. Covariate-adjusted linear regression showed shorter door-to-needle (17.2 [9.7–24.6] min) and CT-to-needle (10.7 [4.2–17.1] min) times in the MSU compared to UAH and non-UAH sites. There was no difference in the proportion of patients with an excellent functional outcome (mRS 0–1) at 90–120 days or symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) at 24 hours between groups.

Enrollment in the AcT trial from the MSU was feasible. MSU-enrolled patients demonstrated faster door-to-needle and CT-to-needle times, resulting in earlier IVT administration and similar rates of symptomatic ICH.

Clinical trials often struggle to recruit enough participants, with only 10% of eligible patients enrolling. This is concerning for conditions like stroke, where timely decision-making is crucial. Frontline clinicians typically screen patients manually, but this approach can be overwhelming and lead to many eligible patients being overlooked.

To address the problem of efficient and inclusive screening for trials, we developed a matching algorithm using imaging and clinical variables gathered as part of the AcT trial (NCT03889249) to automatically screen patients by matching these variables with the trials’ inclusion and exclusion criteria using rule-based logic. We then used the algorithm to identify patients who could have been enrolled in six trials: EASI-TOC (NCT04261478), CATIS-ICAD (NCT04142125), CONVINCE (NCT02898610), TEMPO-2 (NCT02398656), ESCAPE-MEVO (NCT05151172), and ENDOLOW (NCT04167527). To evaluate our algorithm, we compared our findings to the number of enrollments achieved without using a matching algorithm. The algorithm’s performance was validated by comparing results with ground truth from a manual review of two clinicians. The algorithm’s ability to reduce screening time was assessed by comparing it with the average time used by study clinicians.

The algorithm identified more potentially eligible study candidates than the number of participants enrolled. It also showed over 90% sensitivity and specificity for all trials, and reducing screening time by over 100-fold.

Automated matching algorithms can help clinicians quickly identify eligible patients and reduce resources needed for enrolment. Additionally, the algorithm can be modified for use in other trials and diseases.

It is unknown if the COVID-19 pandemic and public health measures had an immediate impact on stroke subtypes and etiologies in patients not infected with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate if the proportion of non-COVID-19-related stroke subtypes (ischemic vs. hemorrhagic) and etiologies (cardioembolic, atherosclerosis, small vessel disease, and others) during the pandemic’s first wave were different from prepandemic.

For this retrospective cohort study, we included patients without COVID-19 with ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke at two large Canadian stroke centers between March–May 2019 (prepandemic cohort) and March–May 2020 (pandemic cohort). Proportions of stroke subtypes and etiologies were compared between cohorts using chi-square tests.

The prepandemic cohort consisted of 234 stroke patients and the pandemic cohort of 207 stroke patients. There were no major differences in baseline characteristics. The proportions of ischemic versus hemorrhagic stroke were similar (ischemic stroke: 77% prepandemic vs. 75% pandemic; hemorrhagic stroke:12% prepandemic vs. 14% pandemic; p > 0.05). There were no differences in etiologies, except for a decreased proportion of ischemic stroke due to atherosclerosis in the pandemic cohort (26% prepandemic vs. 15% pandemic; difference: 10.6%, 95%CI: 1.4-19.7; p = 0.03). Notably, during the pandemic, the cause of ischemic stroke was more often unknown because of incomplete work-up (13.3% prepandemic vs. 28.2% pandemic, difference: 14.9%, 95%-CI: 5.7–24.2; p = <0.01).

In this study, the pandemic had no clear effect on stroke subtypes and etiologies suggesting a limited impact of the pandemic on stroke triggers. However, the shift from atherosclerosis toward other causes warrants further exploration.

We investigated the impact of regionally imposed social and healthcare restrictions due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to the time metrics in the management of acute ischemic stroke patients admitted at the regional stroke referral site for Central South Ontario, Canada.

We compared relevant time metrics between patients with acute ischemic stroke receiving intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) and/or endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) before and after the declared restrictions and state of emergency imposed in our region (March 17, 2020).

We identified a significant increase in the median door-to-CT times for patients receiving intravenous tPA (19 min, interquartile range (IQR): 14–27 min vs. 13 min, IQR: 9–17 min, p = 0.008) and/or EVT (20 min, IQR: 15–33 min vs. 11 min, IQR: 5–20 min, p = 0.035) after the start of social and healthcare restrictions in our region compared to the previous 12 months. For patients receiving intravenous tPA treatment, we also found a significant increase (p = 0.005) in the median door-to-needle time (61 min, IQR: 46–72 min vs. 37 min, IQR: 30–50 min). No delays in the time from symptom onset to hospital presentation were uncovered for patients receiving tPA and/or endovascular reperfusion treatments in the first 1.5 months after the establishment of regional and institutional restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

We detected an increase in our institutional time to treatment metrics for acute ischemic stroke patients receiving tPA and/or endovascular reperfusion therapies, related to delays from hospital presentation to the acquisition of cranial CT imaging for both tPA- and EVT-treated patients, and an added delay to treatment with tPA.