Comparison of Balloon Guide Catheters and Standard Guide Catheters for Acute Ischemic Stroke: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to update our 2021 systematic review and meta-analysis which reported that balloon guide catheters (BGC) are associated with superior clinical and angiographic outcomes compared to standard guide catheters for treatment of acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of 7 electronic databases to identify literature published between January 2010 and September 2023 reporting BGC versus non-BGC approaches. Primary outcomes were final modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (mTICI) ≥2b, first-pass effect (mTICI ≥2c on first pass), and modified Rankin scale 0-2 at 90 days. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. A separate random effects model was fitted for each outcome. Subgroup analyses by first-line approach were conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies comprising 8583 patients were included (4948 BGC; 3635 non-BGC; 1561 BGC + Stent-retriever; 1297 non-BGC + Stent-retriever). Nine studies had low risk of bias, 3 were moderate risk, and 12 were high risk. Patients treated with BGCs had higher odds of achieving mTICI 2b/3, first-pass effect mTICI 2c/3, and modified Rankin scale 0-2 at 90 days (P < 0.001). The number of patients needed to treat in order to achieve one additional successful recanalization is 17. BGC + Stent-retriever was associated with higher odds of mTICI≥2b, 90-day modified Rankin scale 0-2, and reduced odds of 90-day mortality compared to non-BGC + Stent-retrievers. The main limitation was the absence of randomized trials. CONCLUSIONS: These findings corroborate our previous results suggesting that MT using BGCs is associated with better safety and effectiveness outcomes for acute ischemic stroke, especially BGC + Stent-retrievers.

Estimating the impact of balloon guide catheter with mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke: A U.S. cost analysis.

BACKGROUND: Balloon guide catheters (BGCs) can be used adjunctively during mechanical thrombectomy (MT) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Evaluating the potential economic impact associated with adjunctive BGC use is an important consideration for resource allocation. METHODS: Decision tree models were used to estimate the economic value of BGC use in MT through its impact on functional outcomes. Healthcare utilization cost estimates in the short- and long-term for patients with different 90-day mRS scores were analyzed for MT-only and MT + BGC scenarios. Deterministic (one-way) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness and uncertainty of model parameters. RESULTS: Per-patient index hospitalization cost was estimated at $65,260 for MT-only and $62,883 for MT + BGC scenarios. Per-patient one-year post-index hospitalization cost was estimated at $27,569 for MT-only and $24,830 for MT + BGC. MT + BGC had a total cost savings of $5117 compared with MT-only. Deterministic (one-way) sensitivity analysis demonstrated that cost saving per patient was most sensitive to the proportion of patients in the mRS 0-2 category in both MT + BGC and MT-only. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, mean per-patient costs for the index hospitalization were estimated at $63,737 for MT-only and $61,425 for MT + BGC. Mean per-patient cost estimates one-year post-index hospitalization was $27,445 for MT-only and $24,715 for MT + BGC. MT + BGC had a total cost savings of $5043 compared with MT-only. CONCLUSION: Mechanical thrombectomy with adjunctive BGC use may reduce short-term and long-term patient costs due to improved functional outcomes when compared to MT treatment alone for AIS.

Cerebral revascularization surgery reduces cerebrovascular events in children with sickle cell disease and moyamoya syndrome: Results of the stroke in sickle cell revascularization surgery retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that cerebral revascularization surgery may be a safe and effective therapy to reduce stroke risk in patients with sickle cell disease and moyamoya syndrome (SCD-MMS). METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective study of children with SCD-MMS treated with conservative management alone (conservative group)-chronic blood transfusion and/or hydroxyurea-versus conservative management plus surgical revascularization (surgery group). We monitored cerebrovascular event (CVE) rates-a composite of strokes and transient ischemic attacks. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare CVE occurrence and multivariable Poisson regression was used to compare incidence rates between groups. Covariates in multivariable models included age at treatment start, age at moyamoya diagnosis, antiplatelet use, CVE history, and the risk period length. RESULTS: We identified 141 patients with SCD-MMS, 78 (55.3%) in the surgery group and 63 (44.7%) in the conservative group. Compared with the conservative group, preoperatively the surgery group had a younger age at moyamoya diagnosis, worse baseline modified Rankin scale scores, and increased prevalence of CVEs. Despite more severe pretreatment disease, the surgery group had reduced odds of new CVEs after surgery (odds ratio = 0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.08-0.94, p = .040). Furthermore, comparing surgery group patients during presurgical versus postsurgical periods, CVEs odds were significantly reduced after surgery (odds ratio = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.08-0.58, p = .002). CONCLUSIONS: When added to conservative management, cerebral revascularization surgery appears to reduce the risk of CVEs in patients with SCD-MMS. A prospective study will be needed to validate these findings.

Mortality of COVID-19 in patients with hematological malignancies versus solid tumors: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Cancer patients are more vulnerable to COVID-19 compared to the general population, but it remains unclear which types of cancer have the highest risk of COVID-19-related mortality. This study examines mortality rates for those with hematological malignancies (Hem) versus solid tumors (Tumor). PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for relevant articles using Nested Knowledge software (Nested Knowledge, St Paul, MN). Articles were eligible for inclusion if they reported mortality for Hem or Tumor patients with COVID-19. Articles were excluded if they were not published in English, non-clinical studies, had insufficient population/outcomes reporting, or were irrelevant. Baseline characteristics collected included age, sex, and comorbidities. Primary outcomes were all-cause and COVID-19-related in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included rates of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Effect sizes from each study were computed as logarithmically transformed odds ratios (ORs) with random-effects, Mantel-Haenszel weighting. The between-study variance component of random-effects models was computed using restricted effects maximum likelihood estimation, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) around pooled effect sizes were calculated using Hartung-Knapp adjustments. In total, 12,057 patients were included in the analysis, with 2,714 (22.5%) patients in the Hem group and 9,343 (77.5%) patients in the Tumor group. The overall unadjusted odds of all-cause mortality were 1.64 times higher in the Hem group compared to the Tumor group (95% CI: 1.30-2.09). This finding was consistent with multivariable models presented in moderate- and high-quality cohort studies, suggestive of a causal effect of cancer type on in-hospital mortality. Additionally, the Hem group had increased odds of COVID-19-related mortality compared to the Tumor group (OR = 1.86 [95% CI: 1.38-2.49]). There was no significant difference in odds of IMV or ICU admission between cancer groups (OR = 1.13 [95% CI: 0.64-2.00] and OR = 1.59 [95% CI: 0.95-2.66], respectively). Cancer is a serious comorbidity associated with severe outcomes in COVID-19 patients, with especially alarming mortality rates in patients with hematological malignancies, which are typically higher compared to patients with solid tumors. A meta-analysis of individual patient data is needed to better assess the impact of specific cancer types on patient outcomes and to identify optimal treatment strategies.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of anesthesia type on hip fracture post-surgery outcomes.

Objective: To compare technical, clinical, and safety outcomes among hip fracture patients treated with procedures supplemented by general anesthesia (GA) or spinal/regional anesthesia (S/R). Data sources: We searched for original studies on PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and Cochrane databases. Study selection: Studies that reported clinical outcomes in patients that underwent hip fracture surgery, had available data on type of anesthesia administered, and clinical follow-up data were selected for data extraction. Data extraction: The primary outcomes of interest were odds of mortality, including in-hospital, 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year mortality. Various adverse events (AEs) were also compared. Data synthesis: Twenty-eight studies met our selection criteria, including 190,394 patients. A total of 107,314 (56.4%) patients were treated with procedures involving GA while 83,080 (43.6%) were treated with procedures involving S/R. There was no difference in 30-day or >1-year mortality rates between the GA and SR groups; however, compared to S/R group, the GA group had a significantly higher odds of in-hospital (P = .004) and 90-day mortality (P = .004). There was no difference in odds of adverse events between the GA and the S/R group. Conclusions: Patients administered S/R for hip fracture procedures demonstrate lower risk of in-hospital mortality and 90-day mortality compared to patients administered GA. Level of evidence: Therapeutic level III.

Mechanical thrombectomy in anterior vs. posterior circulation stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: High-quality evidence exists for mechanical thrombectomy (MT) treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to large vessel occlusion of the anterior circulation (AC-LVO). The evidence for MT treatment of posterior circulation large vessel occlusion (PC-LVO) is weaker, largely drawn from lower quality studies specific to PC-LVO and extrapolated from findings in AC-LVO, and ambiguous with regards to technical success. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the technical success and functional outcomes of MT in PC-LVO versus AC-LVO patients. METHODS: We identified comparative studies reporting on patients treated with MT in AC-LVO versus PC-LVO. The primary outcome of interest was thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI) ≥ 2b. Secondary outcomes included rates of TICI 3, 90-day functional independence, first-pass-effect, average number of passes, and 90-day mortality. A separate random effects model was fit for each outcome measure. RESULTS: Twenty studies with 12,911 patients, 11,299 (87.5%) in the AC-LVO arm and 1612 (12.5%) in the PC-LVO arm, were included. AC-LVO and PC-LVO patients had comparable rates of successful recanalization [OR = 1.02 [95% CI: 0.79-1.33], p = 0.848). However, the AC-LVO group had greater odds of 90-day functional independence (OR = 1.26 [95% CI: 1.00; 1.59], p = 0.050) and lower odds of 90-day mortality (OR = 0.58 [95% CI: 0.43; 0.79], p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: MT achieves similar rates of recanalization with a similar safety profile in PC-LVO and AC-LVO patients. Patients with PC-LVO are less likely to achieve functional independence after MT. Future studies should identify PC-LVO patients who are likely to achieve favourable functional outcomes.

Patient outcomes after treatment of brain aneurysm in small diameter vessels with the silk vista baby flow diverter: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The Silk Vista Baby (SVB, BALT) is a first-in-class flow-diverter device delivered using a 0.017" microcatheter, designed for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms, including those in small diameter vessels. This study reports a systematic literature review (SLR) to evaluate the safety and efficacy of using SVB to treat intracranial aneurysms in vessels less than 3.5 mm in diameter. METHODS: We performed a PRISMA-compliant SLR to evaluate the outcomes of SVB in the treatment of aneurysms in small intracranial vessels. Primary outcomes were occlusion status and major stroke, and secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, procedure-related neurologic death, and post-operative aneurysm rupture. Data were expressed as descriptive statistics only. RESULTS: A total of four studies, including 163 patients with 173 intracranial aneurysms, were included. The most common aneurysm locations were the anterior cerebral artery (24.9% [43/173]), the middle cerebral artery (24.3% [42/173]), and the anterior communicating artery (23.1% [40/173]). Parent artery diameter ranged from 0.9 mm to 3.6 mm, and 29% were acutely or previously ruptured aneurysms. Overall, complete or near-complete occlusion was 72.1% on early-term follow-up. Mortality rate among the studies was 2.5%, with 3 instances adjudicated as neurologic deaths (1.8%). Major stroke was noted in 1.2% of cases, and branch occlusion or stent thrombus formation in 5.5%. CONCLUSION: Our review suggests that SVB is a safe and effective treatment for intracranial aneurysms in small vessels. Further prospective and comparative studies with patient outcome data specific to aneurysm location are needed to confirm the safety and efficacy of SVB.

Characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of Myasthenia Gravis in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies suggest that the clinical course and outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and myasthenia gravis (MG) are highly variable. We performed a systematic review of the relevant literature with a key aim to assess the outcomes of invasive ventilation, mortality, and hospital length of stay (HLoS) for patients presenting with MG and COVID-19. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and MedRxiv databases for original articles that reported patients with MG and COVID-19. We included all clinical studies that reported MG in patients with confirmed COVID-19 cases via RT-PCR tests. We collected data on patient background characteristics, symptoms, time between MG and COVID-19 diagnosis, MG and COVID-19 treatments, HLoS, and mortality at last available follow-up. We reported summary statistics as counts and percentages or mean±SD. When necessary, inverse variance weighting was used to aggregate patient-level data and summary statistics. RESULTS: Nineteen studies with 152 patients (mean age 54.4 ± 12.7 years; 79/152 [52.0%] female) were included. Hypertension (62/141, 44.0%) and diabetes (30/141, 21.3%) were the most common comorbidities. The mean time between the diagnosis of MG and COVID-19 was7.0 ± 6.3 years. Diagnosis of COVID-19 was confirmed in all patients via RT-PCR tests. Fever (40/59, 67.8%) and ptosis (9/55, 16.4%) were the most frequent COVID-19 and MG symptoms, respectively. Azithromycin and ceftriaxone were the most common COVID-19 treatments, while prednisone and intravenous immunoglobulin were the most common MG treatments. Invasive ventilation treatment was required for 25/59 (42.4%) of patients. The mean HLoS was 18.2 ± 9.9 days. The mortality rate was 18/152 (11.8%). CONCLUSION: This report provides an overview of the characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of MG in COVID-19 patients. Although COVID-19 may exaggerate the neurological symptoms and worsens the outcome in MG patients, we did not find enough evidence to support this notion. Further studies with larger numbers of patients with MG and COVID-19 are needed to better assess the clinical outcomes in these patients.

Peripheral Nerve Blocks Outperform General Anesthesia for Pain Control in Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this review is to compare the effectiveness of different peripheral nerve blocks and general anesthesia (GA) in controlling postoperative pain after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR). METHODS: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-compliant systematic review was conducted for the period of January 1, 2005, to February 16, 2021, by searching the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Arthroscopyjournal.org. The primary outcomes of interest included 1-hour, 24-hour, and 48-hour pain scores on a numeric rating scale or visual analog scale (VAS). Inclusion criteria were English language studies reporting on adults (≥18 years) undergoing ARCR with peripheral nerve blockade. To synthesize subjective pain score data at each evaluation time point across studies, we performed random-effects network meta-regression analyses accounting for baseline pain score as a covariate. RESULTS: A total of 14 randomized controlled trials with 851 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Data from six different nerve block interventions, single-shot interscalene brachial plexus nerve block (s-ISB; 37.8% [322/851]), single-shot suprascapular nerve block (s-SSNB; 9.9% [84/851]), continuous ISB (c-ISB; 17.5% [149/851]), continuous SSNB (c-SSNB; 6.9% [59/851]), s-ISB combined with SSNB (s-ISB+SSNB; 5.8% [49/851]), s-SSNB combined with axillary nerve block (s-SSNB+ANB; 4.8% [41/851]), as well as GA (17.3% [147/851]) were included. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that c-ISB block had a significant reduction in pain score relative to GA at 1-hour postoperation (mean difference [MD]: -1.8; 95% credible interval [CrI] = -3.4, -.08). There were no significant differences in VAS pain scores relative to GA at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively. However, s-ISB+SSNB had a significant reduction in 48-hour pain score compared to s-ISB (MD = -1.07; 95% CrI = -1.92, -.22). CONCLUSIONS: It remains unclear which peripheral nerve block strategy is optimal for ARCR. However, peripheral nerve blocks are highly effective at attenuating postoperative ARCR pain and should be more widely considered as an alternative over general anesthesia alone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II Systematic review and meta-analysis of Level I and II studies.

Comparison of Balloon Guide Catheters and Standard Guide Catheters for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Balloon guide catheters (BGCs) are designed to induce flow arrest during mechanical thrombectomy procedures for acute ischemic stroke due to large-vessel occlusion and have been associated with improved clinical and angiographic outcomes. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the relative technical and clinical outcomes associated with BGC versus non-BGC approaches. METHODS: A systematic review of clinical literature using the PubMed database was undertaken to identify multiarm studies published between 2010 and 2021 reporting the use of BGC versus non-BGC approaches for stroke treatment. Data collected included complete recanalization (thrombolysis in cerebral infarction, TICI), first-pass effect TICI 3, puncture-to recanalization time, number of endovascular attempts, distal embolization, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, 90-day modified Rankin Scale score 0-2, and 90-day mortality. Subgroup analyses assessed the impact of treatment device (stent-retrievers, contact aspiration, combination therapy, and not specified/other). A random effects model was fit for each outcome measure. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included. Compared with non-BGC approaches, patients treated with BGCs had greater odds of TICI 3 (odds ratio [OR] 1.57; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.08-2.29) and first-pass effect TICI 3 (OR 3.63; 95% CI 2.34-5.62), reduced puncture-to-revascularization time (mean difference -7.8; 95% CI -13.3 to -2.2), fewer endovascular attempts (mean difference -0.47; 95% CI -0.68 to -0.26), reduced odds of distal emboli (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.17-0.71) and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.51-0.86), greater odds of 90-day modified Rankin Scale score 0-2 (OR 1.51; 95% CI 1.27-1.79), and reduced odds of mortality (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.57-0.82). CONCLUSIONS: BGCs yield superior technical and clinical outcomes while reducing patient complications.

Neoplastic cerebral aneurysm from triple-negative breast cancer: A case report.

BACKGROUND: We present a rare case of a ruptured neoplastic aneurysms (NCA) caused by metastatic spread of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in a female patient in her 60s. The patient had a medical history of TNBC and presented to the emergency department after experiencing 3 days of persistent headache. CASE DESCRIPTION: Head computed tomography (CT) revealed a small volume subarachnoid hemorrhage and digital subtraction angiography revealed a 3.9 x 3.5 x 4.2 mm aneurysm or pseudoaneurysm involving the left middle cerebral artery. The aneurysm was successfully clipped and resected, and histopathological examination confirmed triple-negative invasive ductal breast carcinoma within the aneurysm. Six weeks after surgery, she underwent stereotactic radiosurgery and began treatment with chemotherapy. Four months later, the patient presented once again with acute severe headache, and magnetic resonance imaging revealed multiple small lesions within the brain parenchyma, compatible with new metastatic deposits. The patient was subsequently treated with whole-brain radiation therapy and chemotherapy. Over the ensuing 4 months, CT revealed progression of malignancy in the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. Chemotherapy and radiation therapy were terminated, and the patient unfortunately succumbed to her disease 6 months later. CONCLUSION: In patients with NCA with poor prognosis due to aggressive brain metastases, treatments that improve quality of life and survival time should be favored.

Corticosteroid therapy for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroid treatment is an effective and common therapeutic strategy for various inflammatory lung pathologies and may be an effective treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature was to investigate the clinical outcomes associated with corticosteroid treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Scopus databases through March 10, 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of corticosteroid therapies for COVID-19 treatment. Outcomes of interest were mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, serious adverse events (SAEs), and superinfection. RESULTS: A total of 7737 patients from 8 RCTs were included in the quantitative meta-analysis, of which 2795 (36.1%) patients received corticosteroids plus standard of care (SOC) while 4942 (63.9%) patients received placebo and/or SOC alone. The odds of mortality were significantly lower in patients that received corticosteroids as compared to SOC (odds ratio [OR] = 0.85 [95% CI: 0.76; 0.95], P = .003). Corticosteroid treatment reduced the odds of a need for mechanical ventilation as compared to SOC (OR = 0.76 [95% CI: 0.59; 0.97], P = .030). There was no significant difference between the corticosteroid and SOC groups with regards to SAEs and superinfections. CONCLUSION: Corticosteroid treatment can reduce the odds for mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation in severe COVID-19 patients.

Outcomes of acute respiratory distress syndrome in COVID-19 patients compared to the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) often leads to mortality. Outcomes of patients with COVID-19-related ARDS compared to ARDS unrelated to COVID-19 is not well characterized. AREAS COVERED: We performed a systematic review of PubMed, Scopus, and MedRxiv 11/1/2019 to 3/1/2021, including studies comparing outcomes in COVID-19-related ARDS (COVID-19 group) and ARDS unrelated to COVID-19 (ARDS group). Outcomes investigated were duration of mechanical ventilation-free days, intensive care unit (ICU) length-of-stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and mortality. Random effects models were fit for each outcome measure. Effect sizes were reported as pooled median differences of medians (MDMs), mean differences (MDs), or odds ratios (ORs). EXPERT OPINION: Ten studies with 2,281 patients met inclusion criteria (COVID-19: 861 [37.7%], ARDS: 1420 [62.3%]). There were no significant differences between the COVID-19 and ARDS groups for median number of mechanical ventilator-free days (MDM: -7.0 [95% CI: -14.8; 0.7], p = 0.075), ICU LOS (MD: 3.1 [95% CI: -5.9; 12.1], p = 0.501), hospital LOS (MD: 2.5 [95% CI: -5.6; 10.7], p = 0.542), or all-cause mortality (OR: 1.25 [95% CI: 0.78; 1.99], p = 0.361). Compared to the general ARDS population, results did not suggest worse outcomes in COVID-19-related ARDS.

Efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine clinical outcomes associated with convalescent plasma therapy in COVID-19 patients. We performed a literature search on PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify studies published up to December 10th, 2020 that examined the efficacy of convalescent plasma treatment for COVID-19. The primary endpoints were mortality, clinical improvement, and hospital length of stay. We screened 859 studies that met the search criteria, performed full-text reviews of 56 articles, and identified 15 articles that fulfilled inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. The odds of mortality were significantly lower in the convalescent plasma group compared to the control group (OR = 0.59 [95% CI = 0.44; 0.78], P < .001), although results from two key randomized controlled trials did not support the mortality benefit. The odds of clinical improvement were significantly higher in the convalescent plasma group compared to the control group (OR = 2.02 [95% CI = 1.54; 2.65], P < .001). There was no difference in hospital length of stay between the convalescent plasma group and the control group (MD = -0.49 days [95% CI = -3.11; 2.12], P = .713). In all, these data indicate that a mortality benefit with convalescent plasma is unclear, although there remain benefits with convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19.

Remdesivir therapy in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that examined remdesivir treatment for COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using Pubmed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify studies published up to October 25, 2020 that examined COVID-19 treatment with remdesivir. A total of 3 randomized controlled trials that consisted of 1691 patients were included in the meta-analysis. RESULTS: The odds for mechanical ventilation (MV) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) following treatment was significantly lower in the remdesivir group compared to the control group (OR = 0.48 [95% CI: 0.34; 0.69], p < 0.001). The odds of early (at day 14/15; OR = 1.42 [95% CI: 1.16; 1.74], p < 0.001) and late (at day 28/29; OR = 1.44 [95% CI: 1.16; 1.79], p = 0.001) hospital discharge were significantly higher in the remdesivir group compared to the control group. There was no difference in the odds for mortality in patients treated with remdesivir (OR = 0.77 [95% CI: 0.56; 1.06], p = 0.108). CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir attenuates disease progression, leading to lower odds of MV/ECMO and greater odds of hospital discharge for COVID-19 patients. However, remdesivir does not affect odds of mortality.

Mechanical Thrombectomy With and Without Intravenous Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Using Nested Knowledge.

Background: Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) is now the standard-of-care treatment for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) of the anterior circulation and may be performed irrespective of intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (IV-tPA) eligibility prior to the procedure. This study aims to understand better if tPA leads to higher rates of reperfusion and improves functional outcomes in AIS patients after MT and to simultaneously evaluate the functionality and efficiency of a novel semi-automated systematic review platform. Methods: The Nested Knowledge AutoLit semi-automated systematic review platform was utilized to identify randomized control trials published between 2010 and 2021 reporting the use of mechanical thrombectomy and IV-tPA (MT+tPA) vs. MT alone for AIS treatment. The primary outcome was the rate of successful recanalization, defined as thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI) scores ≥2b. Secondary outcomes included 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0-2, 90-day mortality, distal embolization to new territory, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). A separate random effects model was fit for each outcome measure. Results: We subjectively found Nested Knowledge to be highly streamlined and effective at sourcing the correct literature. Four studies with 1,633 patients, 816 in the MT+tPA arm and 817 in the MT arm, were included in the meta-analysis. In each study, patient populations consisted of only tPA-eligible patients and all imaging and clinical outcomes were adjudicated by an independent and blinded core laboratory. Compared to MT alone, patients treated with MT+tPA had higher odds of eTICI ≥2b (OR = 1.34 [95% CI: 1.10; 1.63]). However, there were no statistically significant differences in the rates of 90-day mRS 0-2 (OR = 0.98 [95% CI: 0.77; 1.24]), 90-day mortality (OR = 0.94 [95% CI: 0.67; 1.32]), distal emboli (OR = 0.94 [95% CI: 0.25; 3.60]), or sICH (OR = 1.17 [95% CI: 0.80; 1.72]). Conclusions: Administering tPA prior to MT may improve the rates of recanalization compared to MT alone in tPA-eligible patients being treated for AIS, but a corresponding improvement in functional and safety outcomes was not present in this review. Further studies looking at the role of tPA before mechanical thrombectomy in different cohorts of patients could better clarify the role of tPA in the treatment protocol for AIS.

Tranexamic acid dosing strategies and blood loss reduction in multilevel spine surgery: A systematic review and network meta-analysis: Tranexamic acid for multilevel spine surgery.

BACKGROUND: For adults undergoing complex, multilevel spinal surgery, tranexamic acid (TXA) is an antifibrinolytic agent used to reduce blood loss. The optimal dosing of intravenous TXA remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis compare various dosing regimens of intravenous TXA used in patients undergoing multilevel spine surgery (≥2 levels). METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases were searched for English language studies published January 2001 through May 2021 reporting use of TXA versus placebo for multilevel spine surgery. Primary outcomes of interest were intraoperative blood loss volume (BLV) and total BLV. A separate random effects model was fit for each outcome measure. Effect sizes were calculated as pooled mean differences (Diff) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Random effects network meta-analyses assessed whether the specific TXA dosing regimen influenced BLV. RESULTS: Seven studies with 441 patients were included for meta-analysis. Four different TXA dosing regimens were found: 1) 10 mg/kg + 1 mg/kg/h, 2) 10 mg/kg + 2 mg/kg/h, 3) 15 mg/kg, 4) 15 mg/kg + 1 mg/kg/h. Compared to placebo, patients treated with TXA had reduced intraoperative BLV (Diff = -185.0 ml; 95% CI: -302.1, -67.9) and reduced total BLV (Diff = -439.0 ml; 95% CI: -838.5, -39.6). No significant differences in intraoperative BLV among any of the TXA treatment groups was found. Patients given a TXA dose of 15 mg/kg + 1 mg/kg/h had significantly reduced total BLV in comparison to both placebo (Diff = -823.1 ml; 95% CI: -1249.8, -396.4) and a dose of 15 mg/kg (Diff = -581.2; 95% CI: -1106.8, -55.7). CONCLUSIONS: This study found that intravenous TXA is associated with reduced intraoperative and total BLV, but it remains unclear whether there is an optimal TXA dose. Additional trials directly comparing different TXA regimens and administration routes are needed.

Efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review.

Objectives: To systematically review the clinical literature reporting the use of Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) for the treatment of patients with Cornonavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) to assess the efficacy of LPV/r for the treatment of COVID-19.Methods: The authors systematically searched PubMed and MedRxiv databases for studies describing treatment of COVID-19 patients using LPV/r compared to other therapies. Articles were excluded if they were case reports, opinion editorials, preclinical studies, single-armed studies, not written in English, not relevant to the topic, or published before May 2020. The included outcomes were viral clearance as measured by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negativity and/or improvement on chest computed tomography (CT), mortality, and adverse events.Results: Among 858 total studies, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative review. These studies consisted of 3 randomized control trials, 3 open-label trials, and 10 observational studies. Most of these studies did not report positive clinical outcomes with LPV/r treatment.Conclusion: The systematic review revealed insufficient evidence of effectiveness and clinical benefit of LPV/r in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Specifically, LPV/r does not appear to improve clinical outcome, mortality, time to RT-PCR negativity, or chest CT clearance in patients with COVID-19.