Kallmes, Kevin M

Background Previous studies comparing a direct aspiration first pass technique (ADAPT) and stent retrievers have inconsistent methodologies and data reporting, limiting the ability to accurately assimilate data from different studies that would inform treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) treatment. Objective To conduct a systematic review to discuss and compare the findings of all relevant meta-analysis studies comparing the efficacy of the ADAPT and stent retriever techniques. Methods The study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), where meta-analyses comparing the efficacy of the ADAPT technique and stent retrievers in the treatment of AIS were included. We extracted all relevant data from the included studies and assessed the quality of the included meta-analyses using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Review (AMSTAR-2). Results Seven relevant studies met our inclusion criteria and were suitable for the qualitative synthesis. All included studies obtained data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational investigations (including levels II, III, and IV). At the same time, none of them used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) for quality assessment. In accordance with AMSTAR-2, two studies were rated ‘high’, while the other five were rated ‘moderate’. Conclusions Present evidence is insufficient to clarify the superiority of one modality over the other. Further RCTs on this comparison must be conducted prior to designing further meta-analyses or making conclusive interpretations. Procedure duration and cost should be taken into consideration for any future studies.

Background Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is an effective treatment for acute ischemic stroke attributable to the anterior circulation large‐vessel occlusion. Randomized trials of patients with posterior circulation large‐vessel occlusion (PC‐LVO) have failed to show a benefit of EVT over medical therapy (MEDT). We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to understand better whether EVT is beneficial for PC‐LVO. Methods Using the Nested Knowledge AutoLit living review platform, we identified randomized control trials and prospective studies that reported functional outcomes in patients with PC‐LVO treated with EVT versus MEDT. The primary outcome variable was 90‐day modified Rankin scale score of 0 to 3, and secondary outcome variables included 90‐day modified Rankin scale score of 0 to 2, 90‐day mortality, and rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. A separate random effects model was fit for each outcome measure to calculate pooled odds ratios. Results Three studies with 1248 patients, 860 in the EVT arm and 388 in the MEDT arm, were included in the meta‐analysis. The favorable outcome rate (modified Rankin scale score of 0–3) in patients undergoing EVT was 39.9% (95% CI, 30.6%–50.1%) versus 24.5% in patients undergoing MEDT (95% CI, 9.6%–49.8%). Patients undergoing EVT had higher modified Rankin scale score of 0 to 2 rates (31.8% [95% CI, 25.7%–38.5%] versus 19.7% [95% CI, 7.4%–42.7%]) and lower mortality (42.1% [95% CI, 35.9%–48.6%] versus 52.8% [95% CI, 33.3%–71.5%]) compared with patients undergoing MEDT, but neither result was statistically significant. Patients undergoing EVT were more likely to develop symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (odds ratio, 10.36; 95% CI, 3.92–27.40). Conclusions EVT treatment of PC‐LVO trended toward superior functional outcomes and reduced mortality compared with MEDT despite a trend toward increased symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in patients undergoing EVT. Existing randomized and prospective studies are insufficiently powered to demonstrate a benefit of EVT over MEDT in patients with PC‐LVO.

Background and Purpose: Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is an effective treatment for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to large vessel occlusion of the anterior circulation (AC-LVO). Randomized trials of posterior circulation large vessel occlusion (PC-LVO) patients have failed to show a benefit of EVT over medical therapy (MEDT). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to understand better whether EVT is beneficial for PC-LVO. Methods: Using the Nested Knowledge AutoLit living review platform, we identified randomized control trials and prospective studies that reported functional outcomes in patients with PC-LVO treated with EVT versus MEDT. The primary outcome variable was 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0-3, and secondary outcome variables included 90-day mRS 0-2, 90-day mortality, and rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). A separate random effects model was fit for each outcome measure to calculate pooled odds ratios. Results: Three studies with 1,248 patients, 860 in the EVT arm and 388 in the MEDT arm, were included in the meta-analysis. The favorable outcome rate (mRS 0-3) in EVT patients was 39.9% (95% CI: 30.6-50.1%) versus 24.5% in MEDT patients (95% CI: 9.6-49.8%). EVT patients had higher mRS 0-2 rates (31.8% [95% CI: 25.7-38.5%] versus 19.7% [95% CI: 7.4-42.7%]) and lower mortality (42.1% [95% CI: 35.9-48.6%] versus 52.8% [95% CI: 33.3-71.5%]) compared to MEDT patients, but neither result was statistically significant. EVT patients were more likely to develop sICH (OR=10.36; 95% CI: 3.92-27.40). Conclusions: EVT treatment of PC-LVO trended toward superior functional outcomes and reduced mortality compared to MEDT despite a trend toward increased sICH in EVT patients. Existing randomized and prospective studies are insufficiently powered to demonstrate a benefit of EVT over MEDT in PC-LVO patients.

AbstractBackgroundStroke has been linked to a lack of physical activity; however, the extent of the association between inactive lifestyles and stroke risk has yet to be characterized across large populations.PurposeThis study aimed to explore the association between activity‐related behaviors and stroke incidence.MethodsData from 1999 to 2018 waves of the concurrent cross‐sectional National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) were extracted. We analyzed participants characteristics and outcomes for all participants with data on whether they had a stroke or not and assessed how different forms of physical activity affect the incidence of disease.ResultsOf the 102,578 individuals included, 3851 had a history of stroke. A range of activity‐related behaviors was protective against stroke, including engaging in moderate‐intensity work over the last 30 days (OR = 0.8, 95% CI = 0.7–0.9; P = 0.001) and vigorous‐intensity work activities over the last 30 days (OR = 0.6, 95% CI = 0.5–0.8; P < 0.001), and muscle‐strengthening exercises (OR = 0.6, 95% CI = 0.5–0.8; P < 0.001). Conversely, more than 4 h of daily TV, video, or computer use was positively associated with the likelihood of stroke (OR = 11.7, 95% CI = 2.1–219.2; P = 0.022).ConclusionDifferent types, frequencies, and intensities of physical activity were associated with reduced stroke incidence, implying that there is an option for everyone. Daily or every other day activities are more critical in reducing stroke than reducing sedentary behavior duration.

Background and aim The use of endoluminal flow diversion in bifurcation aneurysms has been questioned due to the potential for complications and lower occlusion rates. In this study we assessed outcomes of endovascular treatment of intracranial sidewall and bifurcation aneurysms with flow diverters Methods In July 2020, a literature search for all studies utilizing endoluminal flow diverter treatment for sidewall or bifurcation aneurysms was performed. Data were collected from studies that met our inclusion/exclusion criteria by two independent reviewers and confirmed by a third reviewer. Using random-effects meta-analysis the target outcomes including overall complications (hematoma, ischemic events, minor ischemic stroke, aneurysm rupture, side vessel occlusion, stenosis, thrombosis, transient ischemic stroke, and other complications), perioperative complications, and follow-up (long-term) aneurysm occlusion were intestigated. Results Overall, we included 35 studies with 1084 patients with 1208 aneurysms. Of these aneurysms, 654 (54.14%) and 554 (45.86%) were classified as sidewall and bifurcation aneurysm, respectively, based on aneurysm location. Sidewall aneurysms had a similar total complication rate (R) of 27.12% (95% CI, 16.56%–41.09%), compared with bifurcation aneurysms (R, 20.40%, 95% CI, 13.24%–30.08%) (p = 0.3527). Follow-up angiographic outcome showed comparable complete occlusion rates for sidewall aneurysms (R 69.49%; 95%CI, 62.41%–75.75%) and bifurcation aneurysms (R 73.99%; 95% CI, 65.05%–81.31%; p = 0.4328). Conclusions This meta-analysis of sidewall and bifurcation aneurysms treated with endoluminal flow diverters demonstrated no significant differences in complications or occlusion rates. These data provide new information that can be used as a benchmark for comparison with emerging devices for the treatment of bifurcation aneurysms.

Abstract Background: Corticosteroid treatment is an effective and common therapeutic strategy for various inflammatory lung pathologies and may be an effective treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature was to investigate the clinical outcomes associated with corticosteroid treatment of COVID-19. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Scopus databases through March 10, 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of corticosteroid therapies for COVID-19 treatment. Outcomes of interest were mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, serious adverse events (SAEs), and superinfection. Results: A total of 7737 patients from 8 RCTs were included in the quantitative meta-analysis, of which 2795 (36.1%) patients received corticosteroids plus standard of care (SOC) while 4942 (63.9%) patients received placebo and/or SOC alone. The odds of mortality were significantly lower in patients that received corticosteroids as compared to SOC (odds ratio [OR] = 0.85 [95% CI: 0.76; 0.95], P = .003). Corticosteroid treatment reduced the odds of a need for mechanical ventilation as compared to SOC (OR = 0.76 [95% CI: 0.59; 0.97], P = .030). There was no significant difference between the corticosteroid and SOC groups with regards to SAEs and superinfections. Conclusion: Corticosteroid treatment can reduce the odds for mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation in severe COVID-19 patients.

AbstractThe purpose of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to examine clinical outcomes associated with convalescent plasma therapy in COVID‐19 patients. We performed a literature search on PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify studies published up to December 10th, 2020 that examined the efficacy of convalescent plasma treatment for COVID‐19. The primary endpoints were mortality, clinical improvement, and hospital length of stay. We screened 859 studies that met the search criteria, performed full‐text reviews of 56 articles, and identified 15 articles that fulfilled inclusion criteria for meta‐analysis. The odds of mortality were significantly lower in the convalescent plasma group compared to the control group (OR = 0.59 [95% CI = 0.44; 0.78], P < .001), although results from two key randomized controlled trials did not support the mortality benefit. The odds of clinical improvement were significantly higher in the convalescent plasma group compared to the control group (OR = 2.02 [95% CI = 1.54; 2.65], P < .001). There was no difference in hospital length of stay between the convalescent plasma group and the control group (MD = −0.49 days [95% CI = −3.11; 2.12], P = .713). In all, these data indicate that a mortality benefit with convalescent plasma is unclear, although there remain benefits with convalescent plasma therapy for COVID‐19.