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.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists in Cerebral Venous Thrombosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: High level evidence for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis is lacking. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of DOACs versus vitamin K antagonists in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis. METHODS: This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021228800). We searched MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Web of Science Core Collection between January 1, 2007 and Feb 22, 2022. Search terms included a combination of keywords and controlled vocabulary terms for cerebral venous thrombosis, vitamin K antagonists/warfarin, and DOACs. We included both randomized and nonrandomized studies that compared vitamin K antagonists and DOACs in 5 or more patients with cerebral venous thrombosis. Where studies were sufficiently similar, we performed meta-analyses for efficacy (recurrent venous thromboembolism and complete recanalization) and safety (major hemorrhage) outcomes, using relative risks (RRs). RESULTS: Out of 10 665 records identified, we screened 254 as potentially eligible. Nineteen studies (16 observational studies [n=1735] and 3 randomized controlled trials [n=215]) met the inclusion criteria. All 3 randomized controlled trials had some concerns, and all 16 observational studies had at least moderate risk of bias. When compared with vitamin K antagonist treatment, DOAC had comparable risks of recurrent venous thromboembolism (relative risk [RR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.52-1.37], I2=0%), major hemorrhage (RR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.40-1.21], I2=0%), intracranial hemorrhage (RR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.30-1.12]; I2=0%), death (RR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.54-2.43], I2=1%), and complete venous recanalization (RR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.87-1.11]; I2=0%). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, DOACs, and warfarin may have comparable efficacy and safety. Given the limitations of the studies included (low number of randomized controlled trials, modest total sample size, rare outcome events), our findings should be interpreted with caution pending confirmation by ongoing randomized controlled trials and large, prospective, observational studies.