Publications by authors named "P Bovi"
Article Synopsis
- The study assesses the availability and effectiveness of treatments like intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and mechanical thrombectomy (MT) for acute ischemic stroke patients in the Veneto region of Italy from 2017 to 2021, using a "hub-and-spoke" model.
- Data from 23 stroke units showed a total of 6093 IVT treatments, 1114 combined IVT and MT treatments, and 921 MT-only treatments, revealing variation in treatment rates across regions and differences in access based on the unit's classification as a hub or spoke.
- Results indicate that while overall treatment goals set by the Action Plan for Stroke in Europe have been exceeded, there is still significant variability in access to MT treatments across
Background: Efficiency of care chain response and hospital reactivity were and are challenged for stroke acute care management during the pandemic period of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in North-Eastern Italy (Veneto, Friuli-Venezia-Giulia, Trentino-Alto-Adige), counting 7,193,880 inhabitants (ISTAT), with consequences in acute treatment for patients with ischemic stroke.
Methods: We conducted a retrospective data collection of patients admitted to stroke units eventually treated with thrombolysis and thrombectomy, ranging from January to May 2020 from the beginning to the end of the main first pandemic period of COVID-19 in Italy. The primary endpoint was the number of patients arriving to these stroke units, and secondary endpoints were the number of thrombolysis and/or thrombectomy.
Article Synopsis
- The study investigates how different treatments (direct oral anticoagulants vs vitamin K antagonists) and timing of treatment (early vs late) influence outcomes for stroke patients with atrial fibrillation.
- A nomogram model was created using data from 2102 patients to estimate the likelihood of unfavorable outcomes at three months post-stroke, factoring in age, stroke severity, treatment type, and timing.
- The model showed good predictive performance, with an area under the curve of 0.822 in the training set and 0.803 in the test set, indicating it is a useful tool for healthcare providers.