Endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke beyond the 24-h time window: Selection by target mismatch profile.

INTRODUCTION: Endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) has been established as a promising clinical intervention within a late time window of 6-24 h after symptom onset. Patients with slow progression, however, may still benefit from endovascular treatment beyond the 24-h time window (very late window). AIM: The aim of this study is to report insight into the potential clinical benefits of endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke beyond 24 h from symptom onset. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on consecutive patients undergoing endovascular treatment for acute anterior circulation LVO ischemic stroke beyond 24 h. Participants were recruited between July 2019 and November 2020. Patients were selected based on the DAWN/DEFUSE 3 criteria (Perfusion-RAPID, iSchemaView) and patients receiving treatment beyond 24 h were compared to a group of patients receiving endovascular treatment between 6 and 24 h after symptom onset. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with functional independence at 90 days (modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2). The secondary outcomes were shift modified Rankin Scale (mRS) analysis and successful reperfusion was defined by thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI) 2b-3 on the final procedure. Safety outcomes were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and death at the 90-day follow-up. Propensity score (PS)-matched analyses were employed to rectify the imbalanced baseline characteristics between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 166 patients were recruited with a median age of 63.0 (56.0-69.0) and 28.9% of all patients were females. Patients in the beyond 24-h group had a longer onset-to-groin time (median = 27.2 vs 14.3 h, p < 0.001) than those in the 6- to 24-h group. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) (median = 12.0 vs 15.0, p = 0.37), perfusion imaging characteristics (core: median = 11.0 vs 9.0 mL, p = 0.86; mismatch volume: median = 106.0 vs 96.0, p = 0.44; mismatch ratio = 6.46 vs 7.24, p = 0.91), and perfusion-to-groin time (median = 72.5 vs 76.0 min, p = 0.77). No significant differences were noted among patients between the two groups in the primary endpoint functional independence analysis (50.0% vs 46.6%, p = 0.77) and in the safety endpoint analysis: mortality (15.0% vs 11.0%, p = 0.71) or symptomatic hemorrhage (0% vs 3.42%, p > 0.999). In PS-matched analyses, there were no significant differences among patients between the two groups in functional independence (50.0% vs 54.8%, p = 0.74), mortality (16.7% vs 9.68%, p = 0.50), or symptomatic hemorrhage (0% vs 6.45%, p = 0.53). CONCLUSION: Endovascular treatment can be performed safely and effectively in LVO patients beyond 24 h from symptom onset when selected by target mismatch profile. The clinical outcome of these patients was comparable to those treated in the 6- to 24-h window. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Side effects following first dose of COVID-19 vaccination in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

Vaccines are strongly recommended globally as an effective measure to prevent serious illness from and spread of COVID-19. Concerns about safety following vaccination continue to be the most common reason that people do not accept the vaccine. This retrospective study was carried out on 4341 people who received the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, BBIBP-CorV, or mRNA-1273 vaccine at Jio Health Clinic in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Post-injection side effects were either reported by participants or actively collected by health care staff by means of telemedicine. Local side effects were reported by 35.5% of all individuals, with pain being the most common symptom (33.3%). Systemic side effects were reported by 44.2% of individuals, with fever (25.3%) and fatigue (21.4%) being the most common. Age ≤60 years, female gender, and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were significant independent risk factors for both local and systemic side effects, while a history of allergy was significant as a risk factor for local side effects. A total of 43 individuals (1.0%) reported concerning symptoms of rare severe complications, which were addressed and treated by physicians via Jio Health app.

Development and Validation of Clinical Diagnostic Model for Girls with Central Precocious Puberty: Machine-learning Approaches.

BACKGROUND: A brief gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHa) stimulation test which solely focused on LH 30-minute post-stimulation was considered to identify girls with central precocious puberty (CPP). However, it was tested using traditional statistical methods. With advanced computer science, we aimed to develop a machine learning-based diagnostic model that processed baseline CPP-related variables and a brief GnRHa stimulation test for CPP diagnosis. METHODS: We recruited girls suspected of precocious puberty and underwent a GnRHa stimulation test at Children Hospital 2, Vietnam, and Cathay General Hospital, Taiwan. Clinical data, bone age measurement, and 30-min post-stimulation blood test were used to build up the predictive model. The candidate model was developed by different machine learning algorithms that were mainly evaluated by sensitivity, specificity, the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC), and F1-score in internal and external validation data to classify girls as CPP and non-CPP at different time-points (0-min, 30-min, 60-min, and 120-min post-stimulation). RESULTS: Among the 614 girls diagnosed with PP, 524 (85.3%) had CPP. The random forest algorithm yielded the highest value of F1-score (0.976), specificity (0.893), positive predicted value (0.987), and relatively high value of AUC (0.972) that contributed to high probability to identify CPP. The performance metrics of the 30-min post-stimulation diagnostic model including sensitivity and specificity surpassed those of the 0-minute model (0-min) and were equivalent to those of the model obtained 60-min and 120-min post-stimulation. Hence, our machine learning-based model helps shorten the stimulation test to 30 minutes after GnRHa injection, in general, it requires 120 minutes for a completed GnRHa stimulation test. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a diagnostic model based on clinical features and a single sample 30-minute post-stimulation to identify CPP in girls that can reduce distress for children caused by multiple blood samplings.

Development and Psychometric Properties of the Health Belief Scales Toward COVID-19 Vaccine in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

BACKGROUND: Beliefs of an individual about health conditions can play an important role in contributing to their behavior concerning good and bad health practices. The aim of this study was to develop and assess a set of vaccination belief scales in relation to COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted between July 2020 and January 2021 using a systematic random sampling of 425 adult outpatients at two hospitals in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. An instrument was designed based on the dimensional structure and wording of the health belief model (HBM), which was followed by the assessment of the instrument's internal consistency and the construct validity. RESULTS: The 15-item instrument showed the content validity index (CVI) of scales reached a value of 1.0. Exploratory factor analysis was performed on the first sample (n = 170) and extracted 12 out of 15 draft items in a four-factor model (threat of disease, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and cues to action) that accounted for 68.3% of the total variance. Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.765 showed as satisfactory. Following this, the confirmatory factor analysis in the remaining sample (n = 255) found a good fit between a four-factor model and a theoretical model of HBM with acceptable values of fit indices. CONCLUSION: Beliefs scales for COVID-19 vaccination have been determined to be valid and reliable. They can be a helpful instrument for health educators to use for assessing immunization beliefs of individuals and the public where there is the need to implement new vaccines, such as the COVID-19 vaccine, before they are used more widely across the community.