Mobile Stroke Units in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 5 "T Letter" Domains.

Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) may be administered to stroke patients requiring immediate treatment more quickly than emergency medical services if certain conditions are met. These conditions include the presence of mobile stroke units (MSUs) with on-site treatment teams and a computed tomography scanner. We compared clinical outcomes of MSU conventional therapy by emergency medical services through a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched key electronic databases from inception till September 2021. The primary outcomes were mortality at 7 and 90 days. The secondary outcomes included the modified Rankin Scale score at 90 days, alarm to IVT or intra-arterial recanalization, and time from symptom onset or last known well to thrombolysis. We included 19 controlled trials and cohort studies to conduct our final analysis. Our comparison revealed that 90-day mortality significantly decreased in the MSU group compared with the conventional care group [risk ratio = 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.71-0.95], while there was no significant difference at 7 days (risk ratio = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.69-1.15). MSU achieved greater functional independence (modified Rankin Scale = 0-2) at 90 days (risk ratio = 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01-1.16). MSU was associated with shorter alarm to IVT or intra-arterial recanalization time (mean difference = -29.69; 95% CI, -34.46 to -24.92), treating patients in an earlier time window, as shown through symptom onset or last known well to thrombolysis (mean difference = -36.79; 95% CI, -47.48 to -26.10). MSU-treated patients had a lower rate of 90-day mortality and better 90-day functional outcomes by earlier initiation of IVT compared with conventional care.

Antiplatelets Versus Anticoagulation in Cervical Artery Dissection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 2064 Patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In young people aged < 50 years, cervical artery dissection (CeAD) is among the most common causes of stroke. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the safest and most effective antithrombotic treatment for CeAD. We aimed to synthesize concrete evidence from studies that compared the efficacy and safety of antiplatelet (AP) versus anticoagulant (AC) therapies for CeAD. METHODS: We searched major electronic databases/search engines from inception till September 2021. Cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anticoagulants with antiplatelets for CeAD were included. A meta-analysis was conducted using articles that were obtained and found to be relevant. Mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used for continuous data and odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI for dichotomous data. RESULTS: Our analysis included 15 studies involving 2064 patients, 909 (44%) of whom received antiplatelets and 1155 (56%) received anticoagulants. Our analysis showed a non-significant difference in terms of the 3-month mortality (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.03-7.58), > 3-month mortality (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.40-6.56), recurrent stroke (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.46-2.02), recurrent transient ischaemic attack (TIA) (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.44-1.98), symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (sICH) (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.12-1.19), and complete recanalization (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46-1.06). Regarding primary ischaemic stroke, the results favoured AC over AP among RCTs (OR 6.97, 95% CI 1.25-38.83). CONCLUSION: Our study did not show a considerable difference between the two groups, as all outcomes showed non-significant differences between them, except for primary ischaemic stroke (RCTs) and complete recanalization (observational studies), which showed a significant favour of AC over AP. Even though primary ischaemic stroke is an important outcome, several crucial points that could affect these results should be paid attention to. These include the incomplete adjustment for the confounding effect of AP-AC doses, frequencies, administration compliance, and others. We recommend more well-designed studies to assess if unnecessary anticoagulation can be avoided in CeAD.

Maternal and neonatal safety outcomes after SAR-CoV-2 vaccination during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: More than five million individuals died because of problems connected to COVID-19. SARS-Cov-2 poses a particular challenge to expectant mothers, who comprise one of the most vulnerable segments of the population. Our aim is to demonstrate the maternal and neonatal safety of the COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), Embase, Ovid, MedRxiv, and BioRxiv databases from inception till December 2021 and then updated it in April 2022. Additionally, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, Research Square and grey literature. Cohort, case-control studies, and randomized controlled trials detecting the safety of the Covid-19 vaccine during pregnancy were included. We used the Cochrane tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the risk of bias of the included studies and the GRADE scale to assess the quality of evidence. A meta-analysis was conducted using review manager 5.4. RESULTS: We included 13 studies with a total number of 56,428 patients. Our analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the following outcomes: miscarriage (1.56% vs 0.3%. RR 1.23; 95%CI 0.54 to 2.78); length of maternal hospitalization (MD 0.00; 95%CI -0.08 to 0.08); puerperal fever (1.71% vs 1.1%. RR 1.04; 95%CI 0.67 to 1.61); postpartum hemorrhage (4.27% vs 3.52%. RR 0.84; 95%CI 0.65 to 1.09); instrumental or vacuum-assisted delivery (4.16% vs 4.54%. RR 0.94; 95%CI 0.57 to 1.56); incidence of Apgar score ≤ 7 at 5 min (1.47% vs 1.48%. RR 0.86; 95%CI 0.54 to 1.37); and birthweight (MD -7.14; 95%CI -34.26 to 19.99). CONCLUSION: In pregnancy, the current meta-analysis shows no effect of SAR-CoV-2 vaccination on the risk of miscarriage, length of stay in the hospital, puerperal fever, postpartum hemorrhage, birth weight, or the incidence of an Apgar score of ≤ 7 at 5 min.

Public knowledge, attitude, and acceptance toward COVID-19 vaccines in Palestine: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on physical and mental health in addition to the global economy are huge. Vaccination is a pivotal measure to decrease COVID-19 morbidity and mortality and to help bring the pandemic under control. Yet, success of the vaccination process depends on the population's willingness to be vaccinated which may be determined by their level of knowledge about and trust in currently available COVID-19 vaccines. Therefore, this study aims to assess the knowledge, attitude, and acceptance of Palestinians towards COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: A national cross-sectional study was distributed in different Palestinian regions to assess the knowledge and attitude of Palestinians toward COVID-19 vaccines using an online questionnaire, it included three sections; sociodemographic characteristics, knowledge assessment questions, and attitude assessment questions. RESULTS: A total of 6226 participants completed the questionnaire; among them, 41.36% believed that vaccines are safe, 69.02% agreed that vaccines are vital to protect from COVID-19; in addition, 55.1% approve administering the vaccine once available, and 37.86% do not believe their benefits outweigh the risks. The Source of information for 22.07% of participants in social media, while 11.92% rely on health care providers. Participants' attitudes and knowledge were significantly affected by gender, governorate, age, education level, and marital status (P <0.001). CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that there is good knowledge and attitude toward the vaccination process against COVID-19 in Palestine, although low acceptance was detected. Awareness campaigns are required to spread reliable knowledge about COVID-19 vaccines.