Endoluminal flow diverters in the treatment of sidewall and bifurcation aneurysm: A systematic review and meta-analysis of complications and angiographic outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The use of endoluminal flow diversion in bifurcation aneurysms has been questioned due to the potential for complications and lower occlusion rates. In this study we assessed outcomes of endovascular treatment of intracranial sidewall and bifurcation aneurysms with flow diverters. METHODS: In July 2020, a literature search for all studies utilizing endoluminal flow diverter treatment for sidewall or bifurcation aneurysms was performed. Data were collected from studies that met our inclusion/exclusion criteria by two independent reviewers and confirmed by a third reviewer. Using random-effects meta-analysis the target outcomes including overall complications (hematoma, ischemic events, minor ischemic stroke, aneurysm rupture, side vessel occlusion, stenosis, thrombosis, transient ischemic stroke, and other complications), perioperative complications, and follow-up (long-term) aneurysm occlusion were intestigated. RESULTS: Overall, we included 35 studies with 1084 patients with 1208 aneurysms. Of these aneurysms, 654 (54.14%) and 554 (45.86%) were classified as sidewall and bifurcation aneurysm, respectively, based on aneurysm location. Sidewall aneurysms had a similar total complication rate (R) of 27.12% (95% CI, 16.56%-41.09%), compared with bifurcation aneurysms (R, 20.40%, 95% CI, 13.24%-30.08%) (p = 0.3527). Follow-up angiographic outcome showed comparable complete occlusion rates for sidewall aneurysms (R 69.49%; 95%CI, 62.41%-75.75%) and bifurcation aneurysms (R 73.99%; 95% CI, 65.05%-81.31%; p = 0.4328). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of sidewall and bifurcation aneurysms treated with endoluminal flow diverters demonstrated no significant differences in complications or occlusion rates. These data provide new information that can be used as a benchmark for comparison with emerging devices for the treatment of bifurcation aneurysms.

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.

Cognitive deficits among patients surviving aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. A contemporary systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is associated with high rates of morbidity, including neurological and cognitive deficits that may be difficult to identify and quantify. This review provides an update on the cognitive deficits that may result from spontaneous aneurysmal SAH (aSAH) and identifies factors that may help predict and manage these deficits at discharge and thereafter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of PubMed and Google Scholar to identify studies published between 2010 and 2019 that assessed cognitive deficits at discharge and during follow-up in patients with aSAH. Full-text articles were assessed for information regarding cognitive testing and factors that may be associated with functional outcomes in this population. RESULTS: We reviewed 65 studies published since 2010 that described the cognitive deficits associated with non-traumatic aSAH. Such deficits may impact functional outcomes, quality of life, and return to work and may result in cognitive impairments, such as memory difficulties, speech problems, and psychiatric disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with aSAH, even those that appear normal at the time of hospital discharge, may harbor cognitive deficits that are difficult to detect, yet can interfere with daily functioning. Further research is needed to provide additional information and to identify stronger correlations to be used in the identification, treatment, and amelioration of long-term cognitive deficits in aSAH patients, including those who are discharged with good clinical outcomes scores.

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.