Tirofiban vs. aspirin in patients with acute ischemic stroke: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Antiplatelet therapy is recommended as the standard treatment for patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) who, for several reasons, did not receive thrombolysis or thrombectomy. However, whether tirofiban or aspirin provides greater benefits for these patients remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to perform a meta-analysis comparing the functional outcomes and hemorrhagic risks associated with tirofiban and aspirin in the management of AIS. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for studies comparing tirofiban to aspirin in patients with AIS who did not receive thrombolysis or thrombectomy until September 2024. Outcomes were modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and mortality at 90 days, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and any bleeding events. Statistical analysis was performed using the R Studio (version 2024.04.1+748). RESULTS: We included 3 randomized controlled trials with a total of 1959 patients, of whom 996 (50.8 %) were in the tirofiban group. Excellent (mRS 0-1) functional outcome (RR 1.25, 95 % CI: 1.05-1.49; I2 = 70 %) and favorable (mRS 0-2) functional outcome at 90 days (RR 1.09, 95 % CI: 1.01-1.16; I2 = 35 %) were significantly higher in tirofiban compared to aspirin. Furthermore, tirofiban showed no difference in mortality (RR 0.77, 95 % CI: 0.24-2.53; I2 = 56 %), or symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (RR 3.42, 95 % CI: 0.27-43.30; I2 = 38 %). However, any bleeding event (RR 1.75, 95 % CI: 1.25-2.45; I2 = 0 %) was more common in the tirofiban group. Lastly, the meta-regression analysis showed that the outcomes were not influenced by the initial NIHSS of the included studies (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Tirofiban is associated with better functional outcomes at 90 days, with no difference in mortality. Additionally, despite being associated with higher bleeding events, there is no difference in symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. Therefore, our results suggest that tirofiban is a promising alternative to aspirin.

Stereotactic aspiration versus conservative management for primary brainstem hemorrhage: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Primary brainstem hemorrhage (PBSH) is a fatal condition related to hypertension. PBSH definitive treatment remains controversial, mainly when surgical options are discussed. OBJECTIVE: To aid decision-making in PBSH scenarios, we aimed to perform a meta-analysis and evaluate the literature on stereotactic aspiration (SA) for PBSH in comparison to conservative management (CM). METHODS: The outcomes assessed were: 30-day mortality, mortality, 90-day good outcome (mRs ≤ 3), good outcome (mRs ≤ 3), good outcome (mRs ≤ 3 or GOS 4-5), 90-day poor outcome (mRs ≥ 4), poor outcome (mRs ≥ 4). RESULTS: We included 1189 patients from 9 studies. 433 (36,41 %) patients were treated with SA. The risk of 30-Day Mortality (RR 0.57; 95 % CI 0.41-0.81; p=0.002; I²=58 %), Mortality (RR 0.56; 95 % CI 0.41-0.75; p<0.001; I²=54 %), 90-Day Poor Outcome (mRS ≥ 4) (RR 0.83; 95 % CI 0.73-0.93; p=0.001; I²=25 %), Poor Outcome (mRS ≥ 4) (RR 0.83; 95 % CI 0.75-0.93; p=0.001; I²=0 %) and Poor Outcome (mRS ≥ 4 or GOS ≤ 3) (RR 0.82; 95 % CI 0.74-0.91; p<0.001; I²=12 %) were significantly lower in patients receiving SA treatment. Also, the risk of 90-Day Good Outcome (mRS ≤ 3) (RR 1.60; 95 % CI 1.06-2.39; p=0.024; I²=21 %), Good Outcome (mRS ≤ 3) (RR 1.48; 95 % CI 1.13-1.94; p=0.005; I²=0) and Good Outcome (mRS ≤ 3 or GOS 4-5) (RR 1.72; 95 % CI 1.17-2.53; p=0.006; I²=25 %) were significant higher in the SA group. CONCLUSION: SA demonstrated favorable outcomes, including reduced mortality rates and improved functional recovery. Further clinical trials are needed to validate these findings.

Active Versus Passive Drainage Systems for Subdural Hematomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) management involves various surgical techniques, with drainage systems playing a pivotal role. While passive drainage (PD) and active drainage (AD) are both used, their efficacy remains contentious. Some studies favor PD for lower recurrence rates, while others suggest AD superiority. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to address this controversy, aiming to provide clarity on optimal drainage modalities post-CSDH evacuation. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed preferred reporting items for systematic reviews guidelines, searching PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science until February 2024. Inclusion criteria focused on studies comparing active vs PD for subdural hematomas. Data extraction involved independent researchers, and statistical analysis was conducted using R software. The assessment of risk of bias was performed using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions framework and the Risk Of Bias 2 tool. RESULTS: In this meta-analysis, involving 1949 patients with AD and 1346 with PD, no significant differences were observed in recurrence rates between the active (13.6%) and passive (16.4%) drainage groups (risk ratio [RR] = 0.87; 95% CI: 0.58-1.31). Similarly, for complications, infection, hemorrhage, and mortality, no significant disparities were found between the 2 drainage modalities. Complication rates were 7.5% for active and 12.6% for PD (RR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.36-1.52). Infection rates were available for 635 patients of the active group, counting for 2% and 2.6%, respectively (RR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.24-4.01). Hemorrhage rates were also available for 635 patients of the active group, counting for 1.1% and 2.2%, respectively (RR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.11-1.81). Mortality rates were 2.7% and 2.5%, respectively (RR = 0.94; 95% CI: 0.61-1.46). CONCLUSION: Our study found no significant difference between passive and AD for managing complications, recurrence, infection, hemorrhage, or mortality in CSDH cases. Further large-scale randomized trials are needed for clarity.

Brain tissue oxygen plus intracranial pressure monitoring versus isolated intracranial pressure monitoring in patients with traumatic brain injury: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring plays a key role in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), however, cerebral hypoxia can occur without intracranial hypertension. Aiming to improve neuroprotection in these patients, a possible alternative is the association of Brain Tissue Oxygen Pressure (PbtO2) monitoring, used to detect PbtO2 tension. METHOD: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central for RCTs comparing combined PbtO2 + ICP monitoring with ICP monitoring alone in patients with severe or moderate TBI. The outcomes analyzed were mortality at 6 months, favorable outcome (GOS ≥ 4 or GOSE ≥ 5) at 6 months, pulmonary events, cardiovascular events and sepsis rate. RESULTS: We included 4 RCTs in the analysis, totaling 505 patients. Combined PbtO2 + ICP monitoring was used in 241 (47.72%) patients. There was no significant difference between the groups in relation to favorable outcome at 6 months (RR 1.17; 95% CI 0.95-1.43; p = 0.134; I2 = 0%), mortality at 6 months (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.57-1.18; p = 0.281; I2 = 34%), cardiovascular events (RR 1.75; 95% CI 0.86-3.52; p = 0.120; I2 = 0%) or sepsis (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.25-2.22; p = 0.604; I2 = 0%). The risk of pulmonary events was significantly higher in the group with combined PbtO2 + ICP monitoring (RR 1.44; 95% CI 1.11-1.87; p = 0.006; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that combined PbtO2 + ICP monitoring does not change outcomes such as mortality, functional recovery, cardiovascular events or sepsis. Furthermore, we found a higher risk of pulmonary events in patients undergoing combined monitoring.