ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
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.
