RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and/or endovascular therapy (EVT) are currently considered best practices in acute stroke patients. Data regarding the efficacy and safety of reperfusion therapies in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are conflicting as regards haemorrhagic transformation, mortality, and functional outcome. This study sought to investigate for any differences, in terms of safety and effectiveness, between AF patients with acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) treated and untreated with reperfusion therapies. METHODS: Data from two multicenter cohort studies (RAF and RAF-NOACs) on consecutive patients with AF and AIS were analyzed to compare patients treated and not treated with reperfusion therapies (IVT and/or EVT). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors for outcome events: 90-day good functional outcome and mortality. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis compared treated and untreated patients. RESULTS: Overall, 441 (25.4%) were included in the reperfusion-treated group and 1,295 (74.6%) in the untreated group. The multivariable model suggested that reperfusion therapies were significantly associated with good functional outcome. Rates of mortality and disability were higher in patients not treated, especially in the case of higher NIHSS scores. In the PSM comparison, 173/250 patients (69.2%) who had received reperfusion therapies had good functional outcome at 90 days, compared to 146/250 (58.4%) untreated patients (p = 0.009, OR: 1.60, 95% CI:1.11-2.31). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AF and AIS treated with reperfusion therapies had a significantly higher rate of good functional outcome and lower rates of mortality compared to those patients with AF and AIS who had undergone conservative treatment.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: ChatGPT is an open-source natural language processing software that replies to users' queries. We conducted a cross-sectional study to assess people living with Multiple Sclerosis' (PwMS) preferences, satisfaction, and empathy toward two alternate responses to four frequently-asked questions, one authored by a group of neurologists, the other by ChatGPT. METHODS: An online form was sent through digital communication platforms. PwMS were blind to the author of each response and were asked to express their preference for each alternate response to the four questions. The overall satisfaction was assessed using a Likert scale (1-5); the Consultation and Relational Empathy scale was employed to assess perceived empathy. RESULTS: We included 1133 PwMS (age, 45.26 ± 11.50 years; females, 68.49%). ChatGPT's responses showed significantly higher empathy scores (Coeff = 1.38; 95% CI = 0.65, 2.11; p > z < 0.01), when compared with neurologists' responses. No association was found between ChatGPT' responses and mean satisfaction (Coeff = 0.03; 95% CI = - 0.01, 0.07; p = 0.157). College graduate, when compared with high school education responder, had significantly lower likelihood to prefer ChatGPT response (IRR = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.79, 0.95; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT-authored responses provided higher empathy than neurologists. Although AI holds potential, physicians should prepare to interact with increasingly digitized patients and guide them on responsible AI use. Future development should consider tailoring AIs' responses to individual characteristics. Within the progressive digitalization of the population, ChatGPT could emerge as a helpful support in healthcare management rather than an alternative.