Murad, Mohammad H

AbstractBackground & AimsAcute liver failure caused by hepatitis E virus genotype 3 and 4 has been rarely described. Because of the presence of a short golden therapeutic window in patients with viral acute liver failure from other causes, it is possible that early recognition and treatment might reduce the morbidity and mortality. We performed a systematic review and pooled analysis of acute liver failure caused by hepatitis E virus genotype 3 and 4.MethodsTwo reviewers appraised studies after searching multiple databases on June 12th, 2017. Appropriate tests were used to compare hepatitis E virus genotype 3 vs 4, suspected vs confirmed genotypes, hepatitis E virus‐RNA positive vs negative, and to discern important mortality risk factors.ResultsWe identified 65 patients, with median age 58 years (range: 3‐79), and a male to female ratio of 1.2:1. The median bilirubin, ALT, AST and alkaline phosphatase (expressed by multiplication of the upper limit of normal) levels were 14.8, 45.3, 34.8 and 1.63 respectively. Antihepatitis E virus IgG, antihepatitis E virus IgM and hepatitis E virus‐RNA were positive in 84%, 91% and 86% of patients respectively. The median interval from symptoms onset to acute liver failure was 23 days, and 16 patients underwent liver transplantation. Final outcome was reported in 58 patients and mortality was 46%. Age was a predictor of poor prognosis in multivariate analysis. No important differences were found between patients infected with genotype 3 vs 4, patients with confirmed vs suspected genotypes, or patients with positive vs negative RNA.ConclusionAcute liver failure caused by hepatitis E virus genotype 3 and 4 is rare, similar between genotypes, occurs commonly in middle‐aged/elderly patients and has a very high mortality. Age is predictive of poor prognosis in multivariate analysis.

Background and Purpose— There is currently controversy on the ideal anesthesia strategy during mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients undergoing general anesthesia (GA group) and those receiving either local anesthesia or conscious sedation (non-GA group). Methods— A literature search on anesthesia and endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke was performed. Using random-effects meta-analysis, we evaluated the following outcomes: recanalization rate, good functional outcome at 90 days (modified Rankin Score≤2), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, death, vascular complications, respiratory complications, procedure time, and time to groin puncture. Results— Twenty-two studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 19 observational studies), including 4716 patients (1819 GA and 2897 non-GA) were included. In the nonadjusted analysis, patients in the GA group had higher odds of death (odds ratio [OR], 2.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.66–2.45) and respiratory complications (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.22–2.37) and lower odds of good functional outcome (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48–0.64) compared with the non-GA group. There was no difference in procedure time between the 2 primary comparison groups. When adjusting for baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, GA was still associated with lower odds of good functional outcome (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.29–0.94). When considering studies performed in the stent-retriever/aspiration era, there was no significant difference in good neurological outcome rates (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.67–1.06). Conclusions— Acute ischemic stroke patients undergoing intra-arterial therapy may have worse outcomes when treated with GA as compared with conscious sedation/local anesthesia. However, major limitations of current evidence (ie, retrospective studies and selection bias) indicate a need for adequately powered, multicenter randomized controlled trials to answer this question.

Background and Purpose— Because of the perceived risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury (AKI), many centers require pre-imaging serum creatinine levels, potentially delaying care. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating AKI rates in patients with acute ischemic stroke receiving computed tomographic angiography (CTA) and computed tomographic perfusion (CTP). Methods— We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Web of Science through December 2016 for studies reporting on AKI in patients with acute ischemic stroke receiving CTA/CTP. Using a random-effects model, estimates were pooled across studies. Outcomes of interest were (1) the odds of AKI in patients receiving CTA/CTP versus noncontrast computed tomography, (2) overall rate of AKI and hemodialysis in patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing CTA/CTP, and (3) the odds of CTA/CTP-associated AKI among patients with and without chronic kidney disease. Results— Fourteen studies were included (6 case–control studies and 8 single-arm studies) with 5727 CTA/CTP and 981 noncontrast computed tomography patients. In case–control studies, AKI was significantly lower among CTA/CTP patients compared with noncontrast computed tomography patients (odds ratio=0.47; 95% confidence interval=0.33–0.68; P <0.01). Adjusting for baseline creatinine, there was no difference in AKI rates between groups (odds ratio=0.34; 95% confidence interval=0.10–1.21). The overall rate of AKI in CTA/CTP patients was 3% (95% confidence interval=2%–4%). The overall rate of hemodialysis in the CTA/CTP group was 0.07% (3 of 4373). There was no difference in AKI among CTA/CTP patients with and without chronic kidney disease (odds ratio=0.63; 95% confidence interval=0.34–1.12). Conclusions— Nonrandomized evidence suggests that CTA/CTP are not associated with statistically significant increase in risk of AKI in patients with stroke, even those with known chronic kidney disease.

Background and purpose Many studies demonstrate that both kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty are superior to conservative therapy in the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral body compression fractures. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the outcomes of vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty, which included prospective non-randomized, retrospective comparative, and randomized studies. Materials and methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Web of Science databases for studies of kyphoplasty versus vertebroplasty from 1 January 1990 to 30 November 2014 and compared the following outcomes: procedure characteristics, pain and disability improvement, complications and anatomic outcomes. A subgroup analysis was performed comparing pain outcomes based on the risk of bias. Results 29 studies enrolling 2838 patients (1384 kyphoplasty and 1454 vertebroplasty) were included. 16 prospective non-randomized studies, 10 retrospective comparative studies, and 3 randomized controlled studies were included. No significant differences were found in mean pain scores between the two groups postoperatively (2.9±1.5 kyphoplasty vs 2.9±1.7 vertebroplasty, p=0.39) and at 12 months (2.7±1.8 kyphoplasty vs 3.2±1.8 vertebroplasty, p=0.64). No significant differences were found in disability postoperatively (34.7±7.1 kyphoplasty group vs 36.3±7.8 vertebroplasty group, p=0.74) or at 12 months (28.3±16 kyphoplasty group vs 29.6±13.9 vertebroplasty group, p=0.70). Kyphoplasty was associated with lower odds of new fractures (p=0.06), less extraosseous cement leakage (p<0.01), and greater reduction in kyphotic angle (p<0.01). Conclusions No significant difference was found between vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty in short- and long-term pain and disability outcomes. Further studies are needed to better determine if any particular subgroups of patients would benefit more from vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty in the treatment of vertebral body compression fractures.