Mobile Stroke Units in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 5 "T Letter" Domains.

Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) may be administered to stroke patients requiring immediate treatment more quickly than emergency medical services if certain conditions are met. These conditions include the presence of mobile stroke units (MSUs) with on-site treatment teams and a computed tomography scanner. We compared clinical outcomes of MSU conventional therapy by emergency medical services through a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched key electronic databases from inception till September 2021. The primary outcomes were mortality at 7 and 90 days. The secondary outcomes included the modified Rankin Scale score at 90 days, alarm to IVT or intra-arterial recanalization, and time from symptom onset or last known well to thrombolysis. We included 19 controlled trials and cohort studies to conduct our final analysis. Our comparison revealed that 90-day mortality significantly decreased in the MSU group compared with the conventional care group [risk ratio = 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.71-0.95], while there was no significant difference at 7 days (risk ratio = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.69-1.15). MSU achieved greater functional independence (modified Rankin Scale = 0-2) at 90 days (risk ratio = 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01-1.16). MSU was associated with shorter alarm to IVT or intra-arterial recanalization time (mean difference = -29.69; 95% CI, -34.46 to -24.92), treating patients in an earlier time window, as shown through symptom onset or last known well to thrombolysis (mean difference = -36.79; 95% CI, -47.48 to -26.10). MSU-treated patients had a lower rate of 90-day mortality and better 90-day functional outcomes by earlier initiation of IVT compared with conventional care.

The resolute Onyx in TIA management (ROTIA).

BACKGROUND: First-line treatment for symptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD) is medical management; however, interventional approaches are increasingly considered for refractory disease. The Resolute Onyx in TIA management (ROTIA) study is a post-market evaluation of the Resolute Onyx (R-Onyx) drug-eluting stent in the treatment of recurrent transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) due to refractory ICAD (off-label use). METHODS: This is a single-center, retrospective case series of consecutive patients who underwent angioplasty and stenting with R-Onyx for treatment of recurrent TIAs due to refractory ICAD from October 2019 to November 2022. Included patients were ages 22-80, had a baseline modified Rankin Scale of ≤2, and had recurrent TIAs attributed to intracranial artery stenosis >70% despite maximal medical therapy. Primary outcomes of interest were peri-procedural complications (TIA, stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, mortality) up to 72 h post-stenting and ischemic stroke up to 18 months post-stenting. RESULTS: Twenty patients (mean age 66.84 ± 14; 25% female; 80% Hispanic) were included. A total of 21 stents were successfully deployed with no peri-procedural complications. There were no recurrent ischemic events at 30 days post-stenting. At 18 months post-stenting, there were no ischemic events and no patient exhibited in-stent restenosis. CONCLUSION: ROTIA demonstrates the feasibility of using the Resolute Onyx drug-eluting stent for the management of TIAs due to refractory ICAD, with high technical success and low peri-procedural complications. Limitations include the retrospective and single-center nature of this study. Future prospective, multi-center, randomized trials with extended observation periods are needed.

Efficacy and Safety of Therapeutic Hypothermia as an Adjuvant Therapy for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The study aims to compare the use of hypothermia in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with control. We systematically searched four electronic databases until March 2022. The inclusion criteria were any study design that compared hypothermia in patients with MI undergoing PCI with control. The risk of bias assessment of the included randomized controlled trials was conducted through Cochrane Tool, while the quality of the included cohort studies was assessed by the NIH tool. The meta-analysis was performed on RevMan. A total of 19 studies were entered. Regarding the mortality, there were nonsignificant differences between hypothermia and control (odds ratio [OR] = 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75 to 1.50, p = 0.73). There was also no significant difference between the control and hypothermia in recurrent MI (OR = 1.21, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.30, p = 0.56). On the other hand, the analysis showed a significant favor for hypothermia over the control infarct size (mean difference = -1.76, 95% CI -3.04 to -0.47, p = 0.007), but a significant favor for the control over hypothermia in the overall bleeding complications (OR = 1.88, 95% CI 1.11 to 3.18, p = 0.02). Compared with the control, hypothermia reduced the infarct size of the heart, but this finding was not consistent across studies. However, the control had lower rates of bleeding problems. The other outcomes, such as death and the incidence of recurrent MI, were similar between the two groups.

Safety and efficacy of edaravone in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: The study aims to increase understanding of edaravone's efficacy and safety as an amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) treatment and provide significant insights regarding this field's future research. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of the Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for randomized controlled trials and observational studies up until September 2022. We evaluated the studies' quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the National Institutes of Health tool. RESULTS: We included 11 studies with 2845 ALS patients. We found that edaravone improved the survival rate at 18, 24, and 30 months (risk ratio (RR) = 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.02 to 1.24], P = 0.02), (RR = 1.22, 95% CI [1.06 to 1.41], P = 0.007), and (RR = 1.17, 95% CI [1.01 to 1.34], P = 0.03), respectively. However, the administration of edaravone did not result in any significant difference in adverse effects or efficacy outcomes between the two groups, as indicated by a P value greater than 0.05. CONCLUSION: Edaravone improves survival rates of ALS patients at 18, 24, and 30 months with no adverse effects. However, edaravone does not affect functional outcomes. In order to ensure the validity of our findings and assess the results in accordance with the disease stage, it is essential to carry out additional prospective, rigorous, and high-quality clinical trials. The current study offers preliminary indications regarding the effectiveness and safety of edaravone. However, further comprehensive research is required to establish the generalizability and sustainability of the findings.

From therapeutic nihilism to armamentarium: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials assessing safety and efficacy of endovascular therapy for acute large ischemic strokes.

BACKGROUND: Three recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigated the potential benefit of endovascular therapy (EVT) in acute ischemic stroke patients presenting with large infarcts. We aimed to confirm the safety and efficacy of EVT in patients presenting with large infarcts and provide more precise estimations of the treatment effects using study-level meta-analysis. METHODS: Comprehensive search of MEDLINE database through PubMed till February 2023 was performed including RCTs only. The data were then extracted from the selected studies and pooled as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). RESULTS: There were a total of 1005 patients across the three qualifying RCTs. Regarding the functional outcomes assessed by modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score, the analyzed data demonstrated statistically significant differences in favor of thrombectomy for both independent ambulatory status (mRS 0-3: RR = 1.78, 95% CI [1.28, 2.48], p = 0.0006) and functional independence (mRS 0-2: RR = 2.54, 95% CI [1.85, 3.48], p < 0.001). The analyzed data did not demonstrate any statistically significant differences between EVT and medical management alone in terms of 90-day mortality (RR = 0.95, 95% CI [0.78, 1.16], p = 0.61), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (RR = 1.83, 95% CI [0.95, 3.55], p = 0.07), and need for hemicraniectomy (RR = 1.22, 95% CI [0.43, 3.41], p = 0.71). CONCLUSION: This study confirms the benefit of EVT on functional outcomes of patients presenting with large ischemic infarcts without significant differences in the rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, hemicraniectomy, or 90-day mortality.

Efficacy and safety of cardioprotective drugs in chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity: an updated systematic review & network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients receiving chemotherapy have an increased risk of cardiovascular complications. This limits the widespread use of lifesaving therapies, often necessitating alternate lower efficacy regimens, or precluding chemotherapy entirely. Prior studies have suggested that using common cardioprotective agents may attenuate chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity. However, small sample sizes and conflicting outcomes have limited the clinical significance of these results. HYPOTHESIS: A comprehensive network meta-analysis using updated and high-quality data can provide more conclusive information to assess which drug or drug class has the most significant effect in the management of chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity. METHODS: We performed a literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of cardioprotective agents in patients with chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity. We used established analytical tools (netmeta package in RStudio) and data extraction formats to analyze the outcome data. To obviate systematic bias in the selection and interpretation of RCTs, we employed the validated Cochrane risk-of-bias tools. Agents included were statins, aldosterone receptor antagonists (MRAs), ACEIs, ARBs, and beta-blockers. Outcomes examined were improvement in clinical and laboratory parameters of cardiac function including a decreased reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), clinical HF, troponin-I, and B-natriuretic peptide levels. RESULTS: Our study included 33 RCTs including a total of 3,285 patients. Compared to control groups, spironolactone therapy was associated with the greatest LVEF improvement (Mean difference (MD) = 12.80, [7.90; 17.70]), followed by enalapril (MD = 7.62, [5.31; 9.94]), nebivolol (MD = 7.30, [2.39; 12.21]), and statins (MD = 6.72, [3.58; 9.85]). Spironolactone was also associated with a significant reduction in troponin elevation (MD = - 0.01, [- 0.02; - 0.01]). Enalapril demonstrated the greatest BNP reduction (MD = - 49.00, [- 68.89; - 29.11]), which was followed by spironolactone (MD = - 16.00, [- 23.9; - 8.10]). Additionally, patients on enalapril had the lowest risk of developing clinical HF compared to the control population (RR = 0.05, [0.00; 0.75]). CONCLUSION: Our analysis reaffirmed that statins, MRAs, ACEIs, and beta-blockers can significantly attenuate chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity, while ARBs showed no significant effects. Spironolactone showed the most robust improvement of LVEF, which best supports its use among this population. Our analysis warrants future clinical studies examining the cardioprotective effects of cardiac remodeling therapy in cancer patients treated with chemotherapeutic agents.

Oncoplastic versus conventional breast-conserving surgery in breast cancer: a pooled analysis of 6941 female patients.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer in women. In the past few years, surgical interventions for breast cancer have experienced massive changes from radical excision to conserving approaches. In this study, we aim to compare the two breast surgery interventions, including conventional breast-conserving surgery (CBCS) versus oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBCS). METHODS: We searched on PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane till 2 October 2021. All relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were included. The data were extracted and pooled using Review Manager software (RevMan 5.4). RESULTS: The pooled meta-analysis of the included studies showed that OPBCS was significantly superior to CBCS in most of the outcomes. Re-excision significantly favoured CBCS (RR = 0.49, 95% CI [0.37, 0.63], P < 0.00001). However, local recurrence (RR = 0.55, 95% CI [0.27, 1.09], P = 0.09), close surgical margins (RR = 0.37, 95% CI [0.14, 1.00], P = 0.05) and end up to the risk of mastectomy (RR = 0.73, 95% CI [0.54, 97], P = 0.06) showed no significant difference between both techniques. Notably, while performing a sensitivity analysis, other outcomes as local recurrence, significantly showed favourable results towards OPBCS. In terms of safety outcomes, there was no significant difference between OPBCS and CBCS. CONCLUSION: We recommend the oncoplastic approach rather than the conventional one in females with breast cancer. Re-excision rates showed better results following OPBCS.

Antiplatelets Versus Anticoagulation in Cervical Artery Dissection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 2064 Patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In young people aged < 50 years, cervical artery dissection (CeAD) is among the most common causes of stroke. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the safest and most effective antithrombotic treatment for CeAD. We aimed to synthesize concrete evidence from studies that compared the efficacy and safety of antiplatelet (AP) versus anticoagulant (AC) therapies for CeAD. METHODS: We searched major electronic databases/search engines from inception till September 2021. Cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anticoagulants with antiplatelets for CeAD were included. A meta-analysis was conducted using articles that were obtained and found to be relevant. Mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used for continuous data and odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI for dichotomous data. RESULTS: Our analysis included 15 studies involving 2064 patients, 909 (44%) of whom received antiplatelets and 1155 (56%) received anticoagulants. Our analysis showed a non-significant difference in terms of the 3-month mortality (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.03-7.58), > 3-month mortality (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.40-6.56), recurrent stroke (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.46-2.02), recurrent transient ischaemic attack (TIA) (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.44-1.98), symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (sICH) (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.12-1.19), and complete recanalization (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46-1.06). Regarding primary ischaemic stroke, the results favoured AC over AP among RCTs (OR 6.97, 95% CI 1.25-38.83). CONCLUSION: Our study did not show a considerable difference between the two groups, as all outcomes showed non-significant differences between them, except for primary ischaemic stroke (RCTs) and complete recanalization (observational studies), which showed a significant favour of AC over AP. Even though primary ischaemic stroke is an important outcome, several crucial points that could affect these results should be paid attention to. These include the incomplete adjustment for the confounding effect of AP-AC doses, frequencies, administration compliance, and others. We recommend more well-designed studies to assess if unnecessary anticoagulation can be avoided in CeAD.

The effect of influenza vaccine in reducing the severity of clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Recent evidence suggests that vaccination against influenza may reduce the clinical outcomes of COVID-19. This study looked at the link between influenza vaccination and the severity of COVID-19 infection. We searched five databases until August 2021. We included studies that reported the relationship between influenza vaccination and COVID-19 outcomes. We pooled the data as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), the data pooled using fixed and random effects models according to the heterogeneity of results. Sixteen observational studies with 191,496 COVID-19 patients were included. In terms of mechanical ventilation, our analysis showed a significant favor for the influenza vaccinated group over the non-vaccinated group (RR = 0.72, 95% CI [0.54, 0.96], P = 0.03). However, the analysis indicated no statistically significant differences between vaccinated and non-vaccinated groups in the term of mortality rate (RR = 1.20, 95% CI [0.71, 2.04], P = 0.50), hospital admissions (RR = 1.04, 95% CI [0.84, 1.29], P = 0.75), intensive care admissions (RR = 0.84, 95% CI [0.44, 1.62], P = 0.60). There were no significant differences between those who had received the influenza vaccine and those who had not in COVID-19 clinical outcomes, except for mechanical ventilation which showed a significantly lower risk in the influenza vaccinated group compared to the non-vaccinated one. However, future research is encouraged as our data have limitations, and the influenza vaccine is regularly updated. Also, this does not exclude the importance of the influenza vaccine during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Maternal and neonatal safety outcomes after SAR-CoV-2 vaccination during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: More than five million individuals died because of problems connected to COVID-19. SARS-Cov-2 poses a particular challenge to expectant mothers, who comprise one of the most vulnerable segments of the population. Our aim is to demonstrate the maternal and neonatal safety of the COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), Embase, Ovid, MedRxiv, and BioRxiv databases from inception till December 2021 and then updated it in April 2022. Additionally, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, Research Square and grey literature. Cohort, case-control studies, and randomized controlled trials detecting the safety of the Covid-19 vaccine during pregnancy were included. We used the Cochrane tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the risk of bias of the included studies and the GRADE scale to assess the quality of evidence. A meta-analysis was conducted using review manager 5.4. RESULTS: We included 13 studies with a total number of 56,428 patients. Our analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the following outcomes: miscarriage (1.56% vs 0.3%. RR 1.23; 95%CI 0.54 to 2.78); length of maternal hospitalization (MD 0.00; 95%CI -0.08 to 0.08); puerperal fever (1.71% vs 1.1%. RR 1.04; 95%CI 0.67 to 1.61); postpartum hemorrhage (4.27% vs 3.52%. RR 0.84; 95%CI 0.65 to 1.09); instrumental or vacuum-assisted delivery (4.16% vs 4.54%. RR 0.94; 95%CI 0.57 to 1.56); incidence of Apgar score ≤ 7 at 5 min (1.47% vs 1.48%. RR 0.86; 95%CI 0.54 to 1.37); and birthweight (MD -7.14; 95%CI -34.26 to 19.99). CONCLUSION: In pregnancy, the current meta-analysis shows no effect of SAR-CoV-2 vaccination on the risk of miscarriage, length of stay in the hospital, puerperal fever, postpartum hemorrhage, birth weight, or the incidence of an Apgar score of ≤ 7 at 5 min.