RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Automated CTP postprocessing packages have been developed for managing acute ischemic stroke. These packages use image processing techniques to identify the ischemic core and penumbra. This study aimed to investigate the agreement of decision-making rules and output derived from RapidAI and Viz.ai software packages in early and late time windows and to identify predictors of inadequate quality CTP studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty-nine patients with acute ischemic stroke who had CTP performed on presentation were analyzed by RapidAI and Viz.ai. Volumetric outputs were compared between packages by performing Spearman rank-order correlation and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with subanalysis performed at early (<6 hours) and extended (>6 hours) time windows. The concordance of selecting patients on the basis of DAWN and DEFUSE 3 eligibility criteria was assessed using the McNemar test. RESULTS: One hundred eight of 129 patients were found to have adequate-quality studies. Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients were calculated on time-to-maximum >6-second volume, time-to-maximum >10-second volume, CBF <30% volume, mismatch volume, and mismatch ratio between both software packages with correlation coefficients of 0.82, 0.65, 0.77, 0.78, 0.59, respectively. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was also performed on time-to-maximum >6-second volume, time-to-maximum >10-second volume, CBF <30% volume, mismatch volume, and mismatch ratio with P values of .30, .016, <.001, .03, <.001, respectively. In a 1-sided test, CBF <30% was greater in Viz.ai (P < .001). Although this finding resulted in statistically significant differences, it did not cause clinically significant differences when applied to the DAWN and DEFUSE 3 criteria. A lower ejection fraction predicted an inadequate study in both software packages (P = .018; 95% CI, 0.01-0.113) and (P = .024; 95% CI, 0.008-0.109) for RapidAI and Viz.ai, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Penumbra and infarct core predictions between Rapid and Viz.ai correlated but were statistically different and resulted in equivalent triage using DAWN and DEFUSE3 criteria. Viz.ai predicted higher ischemic core volumes than RapidAI. Viz.ai predicted lower combined core and penumbra values than RapidAI at lower volumes and higher estimates than RapidAI at higher volumes. Clinicians should be cautious when using different software packages for clinical decision-making.
RESUMO
Background: During minimally invasive ventral hernia repair (VHR) it is unknown if a fascial defect closure, as opposed to a bridged repair (current care), is beneficial for patients. We sought to systematically review the published literature on the role of fascial defect closure during minimally invasive VHR. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and Clinicaltrials.gov were reviewed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared fascial defect closure with bridged repair. The primary outcome was major complications defined as deep/organ-space surgical site infections (SSIs), reoperations, hernia recurrences, or deaths. Secondary outcomes included SSI, seroma, eventration, hernia recurrence, post-operative pain, and quality of life (QOL). Pooled risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were obtained through random effect meta-analyses. Results: Of 579 screened articles, 6 publications of 5 RCTs were included. No significant difference in major complications (10.6% vs 10.4%, RR=1.05, 95% CI=0.51-2.14, P=.90) or recurrences (9.0% vs 10.6%, RR=0.92, 95% CI=0.32-2.61, P=.87) were found between groups. Fascial defect closure decreased the risk of seromas (22.9% vs 34.2%, RR=0.60, 95% CI=0.37-0.97, P=.04) and may decrease the risk of eventrations (6.7% vs 9.0%, RR=0.74, 95% CI=0.37-1.50, P=.41) at the expense of potentially increasing the risk of SSI (3.2% vs 1.4%, RR=1.89, 95% CI=0.60-5.93; P=.28). Reporting of pain and QOL scores was inconsistent. Conclusion: While most individual RCTs demonstrated benefit with fascial defect closure during minimally invasive VHR, our meta-analysis of fascial defect closure demonstrated only a statistically significant difference in seromas compared to bridged repair. Large, multi-center RCTs are needed.
