DEXmedetomidine compared to PROpofol in NEurocritical Care [DEXPRONE]: A multicenter retrospective evaluation of clinical utility and safety.

PURPOSE: Although guidelines recommend dexmedetomidine (DEX) or propofol (PRO) as preferred sedatives in critically ill adults, comparisons in neurocritical care (NCC) are limited. We aimed to evaluate the clinical utility and safety of DEX compared with PRO in NCC setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective, multicenter, observational cohort study conducted at three tertiary academic hospitals with Level 1 Trauma Center and Comprehensive Stroke Center designations, compared the clinical indication and safety of DEX vs PRO in patients in NCC setting. RESULTS: 179 patients were included (94 DEX and 85 PRO), median age of 58, 49% were male (DEX) and 58% were male (PRO). PRO was more commonly used to manage agitation. DEX was more commonly used for facilitating extubation, alcohol withdrawal, and sedation during frequent neurologic assessments. Mean Glasgow Coma Scale scores were higher in DEX group (11 vs. 9; p = .04). The duration of either infusions, mechanical ventilation, and lengths of stay were similar. No difference was observed in hypotension or bradycardia rates. Death was significantly higher with PRO (DEX 10% vs. PRO 22%; p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: DEX and PRO were used for distinct indications in our cohort. Adverse effect profiles and clinical outcome, in the cohorts are largely similar.

Mechanical endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke: An indirect treatment comparison between Solitaire and Penumbra thrombectomy devices.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared mechanical endovascular therapy (MET) in addition to intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (IVtPA) to IVtPA alone for the management of acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Direct comparative studies between individual METs are not available. In lieu of head-to-head randomized control trials, we performed an adjusted indirect treatment comparison (ITC) meta-analysis to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of different METs, Solitaire+IVtPA and Penumbra+IVtPA in AIS patients. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Embase from January 1, 2005 through April 1, 2017 for RCTs in AIS patients, comparing a single MET+IVtPA to IVtPA alone and reporting shift in ordinal modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days. Secondary endpoints included 90 day mortality and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). Endpoints were pooled using traditional random effects meta-analysis methods, producing odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Adjusted ITCs using pooled estimates were then performed. Three studies (SWIFT PRIME, EXTEND-IA, THERAPY) were included; two evaluating the Solitaire stent retriever and one the Penumbra system. Traditional meta-analysis demonstrated that each MET+IVtPA resulted in increased odds of improving ordinal mRS score vs. IVtPA alone, but did not alter the odds of death or sICH. Adjusted ITC showed no significant difference between the METs for any outcome. CONCLUSION: No significant difference in efficacy or safety between the Solitaire and Penumbra devices was observed.