Statins as antiepileptogenic drugs: Analyzing the evidence and identifying the most promising statin.

Many brain insults and injuries are "epileptogenic": they increase the risk of developing epilepsy. It is desirable to identify treatments that are "antiepileptogenic": treatments that prevent the development of epilepsy, if administered after the occurrence of an epileptogenic insult. Current antiepileptic drugs are not antiepileptogenic, but evidence of antiepileptogenic efficacy is accumulating for a growing number of other compounds. From among these candidate compounds, statins are deserving of particular attention because statins are reported to be antiepileptogenic in more published studies and in a wider range of brain insults than any other individual or class of compounds. Although many studies report the antiepileptogenic effect of statins, it is unclear how many studies provide evidence that statins exhibit the following two essential features of a clinically viable antiepileptogenic drug: the drug must exert an antiepileptogenic effect even if it is initiated after the epileptogenic brain insult has already occurred, and the antiepileptogenic effect must endure even after the drug has been discontinued. In the current work, we interrogate published preclinical and clinical studies, to determine if statins fulfill these essential requirements. There are eight different statins in clinical use. To enable the clinical use of one of these statins for antiepileptogenesis, its antiepileptogenic effect will have to be established through future time- and resource-intensive clinical trials. Therefore, it is desirable to review the published literature to determine which of the statins emerges as the most promising candidate for antiepileptogenic therapy. Hence, in the current work, we also collate and analyze published data-clinical and pre-clinical, direct and indirect-that help to answer the question: Which statin is the most promising candidate to take forward into an antiepileptogenesis clinical trial?

Outcomes in techniques of valve sparing aortic root replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical outcomes of reimplantation versus remodeling in patients undergoing valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSRR) surgery. METHOD: Electronic database search at PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Ovid, and Google scholar was performed from inception to January 2020. Primary outcomes were aortic valve (AV) reintervention and postoperative grade of aortic insufficiency (AI) while secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, reoperation for bleeding, and operative times. RESULTS: A total of 21 articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1283 patients had reimplantation while 1150 had remodeling. No difference in preoperative demographics was noted except reimplantation patients were younger (48 ± 16 vs. 56 ± 15 years; p < .00001). The cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times were shorter in the remodeling cohort (168 ± 38 vs. 150 ± 37 min; p = .0001 and 133 ± 31 vs. 112 ± 30 min; p = .0002, respectively). No difference in concomitant total arch surgery (14% in reimplantation vs. 15% in remodeling; p = .53). Postoperatively, there were similar stroke rates (3% in both cohorts; p = .54), rates of reoperation for bleeding (9% in reimplantation vs. 12% in remodeling; p = .88), and 30-day mortality (3% in reimplantation vs. 4% in remodeling; p = .96). No difference in early AV reintervention (1% in reimplantation vs. 2% in remodeling; p = .07), and late AV reintervention (4% in reimplantation vs. 7% in remodeling; p = .07). The AI of +2 grade was significantly lower in the reimplantation cohort (5% vs. 8%; p = .01). CONCLUSION: Our study shows comparable clinical outcomes between both techniques. The practice of each technique is largely center and surgeon dependent. Larger sample size cohorts with minimal confounding factors are required to confirm the above findings.