Impact of the pandemic and concomitant COVID-19 on the management and outcomes of middle cerebral artery strokes: a nationwide registry-based study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as concomitant COVID-19 itself on stroke care, focusing on middle cerebral artery (MCA) territory infarctions. DESIGN: Registry-based study. SETTING: We used the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database, which covers a wide range of hospitals within the USA. PARTICIPANTS: The NIS was queried for patients with MCA strokes between 2016 and 2020. In total, 35 231 patients were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures were postprocedural complications, length of stays (LOSs), in-hospital mortality and non-routine discharge. Propensity score matching using all available baseline variables was performed to reduce confounders when comparing patients with and without concomitant COVID-19. RESULTS: Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) was performed in 48.4%, intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) in 38.2%, and both MT and IVT (MT+IVT) in 13.4% of patients. A gradual increase in the use of MT and an opposite decrease in the use of IVT (p<0.001) was detected during the study period. Overall, 25.0% of all patients were admitted for MCA strokes during the pandemic period (2020), of these 209 (2.4%) were concomitantly diagnosed with COVID-19. Patients with MCA strokes and concomitant COVID-19 were significantly younger (64.9 vs 70.0; p<0.001), had significantly worse NIH Stroke Severity scores, and worse outcomes in terms of LOS (12.3 vs 8.2; p<0.001), in-hospital mortality (26.3% vs 9.8%; p<0.001) and non-routine discharge (84.2% vs 76.9%; p=0.013), as compared with those without COVID-19. After matching, only in-hospital mortality rates remained significantly higher in patients with COVID-19 (26.7% vs 8.5%; p<0.001). Additionally, patients with COVID-19 had higher rates of thromboembolic (12.3% vs 7.6%; p=0.035) and respiratory (11.3% vs 6.6%; p=0.029) complications. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with MCA stroke, those with concomitant COVID-19 were significantly younger and had higher stroke severity scores. They were more likely to experience thromboembolic and respiratory complications and in-hospital mortality compared with matched controls.

Analysis of demographics and the impact of adjuvant radiotherapy on a nationwide cohort of patients with high-grade spinal meningiomas.

Background: Although typically benign, 5% of spinal meningiomas (SMs) present with higher-grade features (World Health Organization grades 2 and 3). High-grade SMs are poorly studied and the role of adjuvant radiotherapy in their management remains controversial. We hence aimed to study the demographic characteristics of this rare tumor and investigate the outcomes associated with the use of surgery with adjuvant therapy in contrast to surgery alone. Methods: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with SMs from 2004 to 2017. Basic statistics were used to identify differences between low- and high-grade tumors in terms of baseline characteristics. Surgery with and without adjuvant radiotherapy were compared after (1:1) propensity-score matching. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was conducted to study overall survival. All analyses were performed on R. Results: A total of 13 184 patients diagnosed with SMs were included, of whom only 5% (n = 669) had high-grade SMs. Patients with high-grade SMs presented at a younger median age (57 years [IQR: 44-68] versus 65 years [54-75]; P < .001) and were more commonly males (33% vs 20%; P < .001). After propensity-score matching, survival analysis revealed similar overall survival outcomes in patients with high-grade SM undergoing both surgery and radiotherapy as compared to those only receiving surgery (P = .19). Conclusions: This study reveals major demographic differences between high- and low-grade SMs. There were no benefits associated with the use of adjuvant radiotherapy. However, due to confounding, overall survival outcomes between patients receiving surgery alone and those receiving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy are not causally interpretable.

General Versus Nongeneral Anesthesia for Carotid Endarterectomy: A Prospective Multicenter Registry-Based Study on 25 000 Patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a well-established treatment option for carotid stenosis. The choice between general anesthesia (GA) and nongeneral anesthesia (non-GA) during CEA remains a subject of debate, with concerns regarding perioperative complications, particularly myocardial infarctions. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes associated with GA vs non-GA CEA using a large, nationwide database. METHODS: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database was queried for patients undergoing CEA between 2013 and 2020. Primary outcome measures including surgical outcomes and 30-day postoperative complications were compared between the 2 anesthesia methods, after 2:1 propensity score matching. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, a total of 25 356 patients (16 904 in the GA and 8452 in the non-GA group) were included. Non-GA compared with GA CEA was associated with significantly shorter operative times (101.9, 95% CI: 100.5-103.3 vs 115.8 95% CI: 114.4-117.2 minutes, P < .001), reduced length of hospital stays (2.3, 95% CI: 2.15-2.4 vs 2.5, 95% CI: 2.4-2.6 days, P < .001), and lower rates of 30-day postoperative complications, including myocardial infarctions (0.8% vs 1.2%, P = .003), unplanned intubations (0.8% vs 1.1%, P = .016), pneumonia (0.5% vs 1%, P < .001), and urinary tract infections (0.4% vs 0.7%, P = .003). These outcomes were notably more pronounced in the younger (≤70 years) and high morbidity (American Society of Anesthesiologists 3-5) cohorts. CONCLUSION: In this nationwide registry-based study, non-GA CEA was associated with better short-term outcomes in terms of perioperative complications, compared with GA CEA. The findings suggest that non-GA CEA may be a safer alternative, especially in younger patients and those with more comorbidities.

Cuffless Blood Pressure in clinical practice: challenges, opportunities and current limits.

Background: Cuffless blood pressure measurement technologies have attracted significant attention for their potential to transform cardiovascular monitoring.Methods: This updated narrative review thoroughly examines the challenges, opportunities, and limitations associated with the implementation of cuffless blood pressure monitoring systems.Results: Diverse technologies, including photoplethysmography, tonometry, and ECG analysis, enable cuffless blood pressure measurement and are integrated into devices like smartphones and smartwatches. Signal processing emerges as a critical aspect, dictating the accuracy and reliability of readings. Despite its potential, the integration of cuffless technologies into clinical practice faces obstacles, including the need to address concerns related to accuracy, calibration, and standardization across diverse devices and patient populations. The development of robust algorithms to mitigate artifacts and environmental disturbances is essential for extracting clear physiological signals. Based on extensive research, this review emphasizes the necessity for standardized protocols, validation studies, and regulatory frameworks to ensure the reliability and safety of cuffless blood pressure monitoring devices and their implementation in mainstream medical practice. Interdisciplinary collaborations between engineers, clinicians, and regulatory bodies are crucial to address technical, clinical, and regulatory complexities during implementation. In conclusion, while cuffless blood pressure monitoring holds immense potential to transform cardiovascular care. The resolution of existing challenges and the establishment of rigorous standards are imperative for its seamless incorporation into routine clinical practice.Conclusion: The emergence of these new technologies shifts the paradigm of cardiovascular health management, presenting a new possibility for non-invasive continuous and dynamic monitoring. The concept of cuffless blood pressure measurement is viable and more finely tuned devices are expected to enter the market, which could redefine our understanding of blood pressure and hypertension.

This review explores cuffless blood pressure technologies and their impact on clinical practice, highlighting innovative devices that offer non-invasive, continuous and non-continuous monitoring without a cuff. Signal processing is essential for ensuring accurate readings, as it filters out unwanted artifacts and environmental disturbances which could make the reading inaccurate. While these advancements show great potential for transforming cardiovascular care, there are still several challenges to overcome, including the need for standardized protocols and validation studies to ensure their reliability and safety in clinical settings. Collaborative efforts between engineers, clinicians, and regulatory bodies are needed to address the technical and regulatory complexities surrounding the implementation of these technologies. These cuffless blood pressure measurement devices have the potential to reshape how we understand and manage blood pressure and hypertension.