Anticoagulation Versus Antiplatelets in Spontaneous Cervical Artery Dissection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether antiplatelets or anticoagulants are more effective in preventing early recurrent stroke in patients with cervical artery dissection. Following the publication of the observational Antithrombotic for STOP-CAD (Stroke Prevention in Cervical Artery Dissection) study, which has more than doubled available data, we performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis comparing antiplatelets versus anticoagulation in cervical artery dissection. METHODS: The systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023468063). We searched 5 databases using a combination of keywords that encompass different antiplatelets and anticoagulants, as well as cervical artery dissection. We included relevant randomized trials and included observational studies of dissection unrelated to major trauma. Where studies were sufficiently similar, we performed meta-analyses for efficacy (ischemic stroke) and safety (major hemorrhage, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and death) outcomes using relative risks. RESULTS: We identified 11 studies (2 randomized trials and 9 observational studies) that met the inclusion criteria. These included 5039 patients (30% [1512] treated with anticoagulation and 70% [3527]) treated with antiplatelets]. In meta-analysis, anticoagulation was associated with a lower ischemic stroke risk (relative risk, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.94]; P=0.02; I2=0%) but higher major bleeding risk (relative risk, 2.25 [95% CI, 1.07 to 4.72]; P=0.03, I2=0%). The risks of death and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage were similar between the 2 treatments. Effect sizes were larger in randomized trials. There are insufficient data on the efficacy and safety of dual antiplatelet therapy or direct oral anticoagulants. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of patients with cervical artery dissection, anticoagulation was superior to antiplatelet therapy in reducing ischemic stroke but carried a higher major bleeding risk. This argues for an individualized therapeutic approach incorporating the net clinical benefit of ischemic stroke reduction and bleeding risks. Large randomized clinical trials are required to clarify optimal antithrombotic strategies for management of cervical artery dissection.

Ultrasound Evaluation of Subsartorial Spread Following Adductor Canal Block: A Case Series.

Adductor canal block is a widely used regional anesthesia technique for total knee arthroplasty that helps in reducing post-surgical pain and opioid use. Anatomically, the adductor canal extends from the apex of the femoral triangle proximally to the adductor hiatus distally and is roofed by the sartorius and vasto-adductor fascia. All these serve as a potential path for the spread of the local anesthetic when it is injected inside the adductor canal during the block. Subsartorial space is of unique interest as it lies between the sartorius and vasto-adductor fascia, carrying the subsartorial plexus that can provide additional analgesia to the knee when the adductor canal block injectate spreads into it. While the spread can be variable, ultrasound can be a useful tool to evaluate this spread. This is a case series of patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty under spinal anesthesia and adductor canal blocks. We present the findings of ultrasound evaluation of the injectate spread following adductor canal blocks and evaluation of their analgesia effects.

Comparison of artificial intelligence large language model chatbots in answering frequently asked questions in anaesthesia.

Background: Patients are increasingly using artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots to seek answers to medical queries. Methods: Ten frequently asked questions in anaesthesia were posed to three AI chatbots: ChatGPT4 (OpenAI), Bard (Google), and Bing Chat (Microsoft). Each chatbot's answers were evaluated in a randomised, blinded order by five residency programme directors from 15 medical institutions in the USA. Three medical content quality categories (accuracy, comprehensiveness, safety) and three communication quality categories (understandability, empathy/respect, and ethics) were scored between 1 and 5 (1 representing worst, 5 representing best). Results: ChatGPT4 and Bard outperformed Bing Chat (median [inter-quartile range] scores: 4 [3-4], 4 [3-4], and 3 [2-4], respectively; P<0.001 with all metrics combined). All AI chatbots performed poorly in accuracy (score of ≥4 by 58%, 48%, and 36% of experts for ChatGPT4, Bard, and Bing Chat, respectively), comprehensiveness (score ≥4 by 42%, 30%, and 12% of experts for ChatGPT4, Bard, and Bing Chat, respectively), and safety (score ≥4 by 50%, 40%, and 28% of experts for ChatGPT4, Bard, and Bing Chat, respectively). Notably, answers from ChatGPT4, Bard, and Bing Chat differed statistically in comprehensiveness (ChatGPT4, 3 [2-4] vs Bing Chat, 2 [2-3], P<0.001; and Bard 3 [2-4] vs Bing Chat, 2 [2-3], P=0.002). All large language model chatbots performed well with no statistical difference for understandability (P=0.24), empathy (P=0.032), and ethics (P=0.465). Conclusions: In answering anaesthesia patient frequently asked questions, the chatbots perform well on communication metrics but are suboptimal for medical content metrics. Overall, ChatGPT4 and Bard were comparable to each other, both outperforming Bing Chat.

Transcarotid Arterial Revascularization of Symptomatic Internal Carotid Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Study-Level Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is an interventional therapy for symptomatic internal carotid artery disease. Currently, the utilization of TCAR is contentious due to limited evidence. In this study, we evaluate the safety and efficacy of TCAR in patients with symptomatic internal carotid artery disease compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted, spanning from January 2000 to February 2023, encompassing studies that used TCAR for the treatment of symptomatic internal carotid artery disease. The primary outcomes included a 30-day stroke or transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction, and mortality. Secondary outcomes comprised cranial nerve injury and major bleeding. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) for each outcome were calculated to compare TCAR with CEA and CAS. Furthermore, subgroup analyses were performed based on age and degree of stenosis. In addition, a sensitivity analysis was conducted by excluding the vascular quality initiative registry population. RESULTS: A total of 7 studies involving 24 246 patients were analyzed. Within this patient cohort, 4771 individuals underwent TCAR, 12 350 underwent CEA, and 7125 patients underwent CAS. Compared with CAS, TCAR was associated with a similar rate of stroke or transient ischemic attack (OR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.33-1.82]) and myocardial infarction (OR, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.83-2.01]) but lower mortality (OR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.22-0.81]). Compared with CEA, TCAR was associated with a higher rate of stroke or transient ischemic attack (OR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.03-1.54]) but similar rates of myocardial infarction (OR, 0.9 [95% CI, 0.64-1.38]) and mortality (OR, 1.35 [95% CI, 0.87-2.10]). CONCLUSIONS: Although CEA has traditionally been considered superior to stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis, TCAR may have some advantages over CAS. Prospective randomized trials comparing the 3 modalities are needed.