Poor Hemorrhagic Stroke Outcomes During the COVID-19 Pandemic Are Driven by Socioeconomic Disparities
Bako, A. T.; Potter, T. B. H.; Pan, A. P.; Borei, K. A.; Prince, T.; Britz, G.; Vahidy, F. S.
Show abstract
BackgroundNationally representative data demonstrating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hemorrhagic stroke outcomes are lacking. MethodsIn this pooled cross-sectional analysis, we used the National Inpatient Sample (2016-2020) to identify adults (>=18 years) with primary intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) or subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). We fit segmented logistic regression models to evaluate the differences in the rates of in-hospital outcomes (in-hospital mortality, home discharge, and receiving neurosurgical procedures) between the pre-pandemic (January 2016-February 2020) and pandemic periods (March 2020-December 2020). We used multivariable logistic regression models to evaluate the differences in mortality between patients admitted from April to December 2020, with and without COVID-19, and those admitted during a similar period in 2019. Stratified analyses were conducted among patients residing in low and high-income zip codes and among patients with extreme loss of function (E-LoF) and those with minor to major loss of function (MM-LoF). ResultsOverall, 309,965 ICH patients (mean age [SD]: 68[14.8], 47% female, 56% low-income) and 112,210 SAH patients (mean age [SD]: 60.2[15.4], 62% female, 55% low-income) were analyzed. Pre-pandemic, ICH mortality was decreasing by {approx} 1 % per month (adjusted odds ratio, 95% confidence interval: 0.99, 0.99-1.00). However, during the pandemic, the overall ICH mortality rate increased by {approx} 2% per month (1.02, 1.00-1.02) and {approx} 4% per month among low-income patients (1.04, 1.01-1.07). However, there was no change in trend among high-income ICH patients during the pandemic (1.00, 0.97-1.03). Patients with comorbid COVID-19 in 2020 had significantly higher odds of mortality compared to the 2019 comparison cohort, overall (ICH: 1.83, 1.33-2.51; SAH: 2.76, 1.68-4.54), and among patients with MM-LoF (ICH: 2.15, 1.12-4.16; SAH: 5.77, 1.57-21.17). However, patients with E-LoF and comorbid COVID-19 had similar mortality rates with the 2019 cohort. ConclusionSustained efforts are needed to address socioeconomic disparities in healthcare access, quality, and outcomes during public health emergencies.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Treatment of Spontaneous Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A 20-year National Inpatient Sample Review 96%
- Prehospital triage of intracranial hemorrhage and anterior large vessel occlusion ischemic stroke: the value of the rapid arterial occlusion evalution 96%
- Computed tomography perfusion parameters predictive of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage after mechanical thrombectomy in patients with cerebral large vessel occlusion 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Risk, clinical course and outcome of ischemic stroke in patients hospitalized with COVID-19: a multicenter cohort study 95%
- Improvement in Delivery of Ischemic Stroke Treatments but Stagnation of Clinical Outcomes in Young Adults in South Korea 95%
- Intracerebral Hemorrhage Outcomes after Reversal of Subtherapeutic Warfarin: Analysis of Data from GWTG-Stroke 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Modified Rankin Scale Disability Status at Day 4 Poststroke is an Informative Predictor of Long-Term Day 90 Outcome 95%
- Impact of Fludrocortisone on the Outcomes of Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Patients: A Retrospective Analysis 95%
- White matter lesions as a prognostic marker of recurrence in cryptogenic stroke with high-risk patent foramen ovale 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- COVID-19 Infection Is Associated with Poor Outcomes in Patients with Intracerebral Hemorrhage 98%
- Disparities in Access to Vascular Stroke Imaging and Carotid Revascularization: A Population Study 94%
- Persistent Inequities in Intravenous Thrombolysis for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the U.S.: Results from the NIS 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.