Assessing mortality and safety of IV thrombolysis in ischemic stroke patients on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) is considered a standard reperfusion therapy for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients presenting within 4.5 hours of the last known well (LKW). Current guidelines contraindicate the use of IVT in patients within the window who are on Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs) and took their last dose within 48 hours of presentation, due to a risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of IVT as management of AIS in patients who take DOACs. METHODS: A thorough literature search of four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Medline, Google Scholar, Web of science and ScienceDirect) was done from inception until May 2023. Double-arm studies that reported outcomes of mortality, sICH, and mRS scores were selected. Results from these studies were presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) and were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Four eligible studies were included with a total of 238,425 stroke patients who underwent IVT (3330 in the DOAC arm and 235,217 in the placebo arm). The group with prior DOAC intake showed a significant decrease in sICH development and an increase in functional independence at 90 days compared to the control group. No significant association was seen between prior DOAC use and any serious alteplase-related complication within 36 hours, serious systemic or life-threatening hemorrhage within 36 hours, mortality within 3 months, or mRS score at 3 months. CONCLUSION: The pooled analysis suggests that IVT is a safe management option for acute ischemic stroke in patients with DOAC intake before symptom onset without an increased risk of serious adverse events.

ChatGPT in medicine: A cross-disciplinary systematic review of ChatGPT's (artificial intelligence) role in research, clinical practice, education, and patient interaction.

BACKGROUND: ChatGPT, a powerful AI language model, has gained increasing prominence in medicine, offering potential applications in healthcare, clinical decision support, patient communication, and medical research. This systematic review aims to comprehensively assess the applications of ChatGPT in healthcare education, research, writing, patient communication, and practice while also delineating potential limitations and areas for improvement. METHOD: Our comprehensive database search retrieved relevant papers from PubMed, Medline and Scopus. After the screening process, 83 studies met the inclusion criteria. This review includes original studies comprising case reports, analytical studies, and editorials with original findings. RESULT: ChatGPT is useful for scientific research and academic writing, and assists with grammar, clarity, and coherence. This helps non-English speakers and improves accessibility by breaking down linguistic barriers. However, its limitations include probable inaccuracy and ethical issues, such as bias and plagiarism. ChatGPT streamlines workflows and offers diagnostic and educational potential in healthcare but exhibits biases and lacks emotional sensitivity. It is useful in inpatient communication, but requires up-to-date data and faces concerns about the accuracy of information and hallucinatory responses. CONCLUSION: Given the potential for ChatGPT to transform healthcare education, research, and practice, it is essential to approach its adoption in these areas with caution due to its inherent limitations.

Neurosurgical Malpractice Litigation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neurosurgery has 1 of the highest risks for medical malpractice claims. We reviewed the factors associated with neurosurgical malpractice claims and litigation in the United States and reported the outcomes through a systematic review of the literature. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines using the Medline, Embase, Cochrane, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases. We sought to identify pertinent studies containing information about medical malpractice claims and outcomes involving neurosurgeons in the United States. RESULTS: We identified 15 retrospective studies spanning from 2002 to 2023 that reviewed over 7890 malpractice claims involving practicing neurosurgeons in the United States. Disparities were evident in neurosurgical litigation, with 474 cases linked to brain-related surgeries and a larger proportion, 1926 cases, tied to spine surgeries. The most commonly filed claims were intraprocedural errors (37.4%), delayed diagnoses (32.1%), and failure to treat (28.8%). Less frequently filed claims included misdiagnosis or choice of incorrect procedure (18.4%), occurrence of death (17.3%), test misinterpretation (14.4%), failure to appropriately refer patients for evaluation/treatment (14.3%), unnecessary surgical procedures (13.3%), and lack of informed consent (8.3%). The defendant was favored in 44.3% of claims, while in 31.3% of lawsuits were dropped, 17.7% of verdicts favored the plaintiff, and 16.6% reached an out of court settlement. Only 3.5% of lawsuits found both parties liable. CONCLUSION: Neurosurgery is a high-risk specialty with 1 of the highest rates of malpractice claims. Spine claims had a significantly higher rate of filed malpractice claims, while cranial malpractice claims were associated with higher litigation compensation. Predictably, spinal cord injuries play a crucial role in predicting litigation. Importantly, nonsurgical treatments are also a common source of liability in neurosurgical practice.