Citations

Introduction Mechanical thrombectomy for ischemic stroke has traditionally been performed via transfemoral access (TFA). However, newer literature on the subject suggests that trans‐radial access (TRA) may be equally efficacious. Materials and Methods Using relevant keywords, online databases (including Pubmed, Google Scholar, Embase, and Cochrane) were queried from inception until May 2024. Abstracts and full texts were screened according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analysis (PRISMA) guidelines to shortlist studies that met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias assessment was performed according to the New Castle Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0. All dichotomous outcomes were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RevMan software was used to perform the statistical analysis. Results Thirteen observational studies and one randomized clinical trial were included in this meta‐analysis. The total sample size was 4973, of which 4074 patients (81.2%) were included in the TFA group and 899 (18.8%) were included in the TRA group. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of successful recanalization (OR=0.92; 95% CI 0.66‐1.27; p =0.60), first‐pass recanalization (OR=0.84; 95% CI 0.69‐1.01, p =0.06), access to reperfusion time (mean difference ‐2.99 minutes; 95% CI ‐8.33 to 2.44, p =0.27) and favorable functional outcome. Mortality and rates of intracranial hemorrhage were comparable between the two groups as well, but access site complications were significantly lower in the TRA group (OR=0.57; 95% CI 0.37‐0.88; p =0.01). Conclusion Trans‐radial access for thrombectomy in large vessel acute ischemic strokes is comparable to trans‐femoral access in terms of efficacy and has a lower incidence of access site complications. Randomized clinical trial data on head‐to‐head comparison of two techniques is limited, underscoring the importance of conducting pragmatic clinical trials.

Introduction Intravenous thrombolysis with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) and endovascular therapy (ET) represent the cornerstone of modern stroke management. Despite advancements in these therapies, a subset of patients fails to achieve optimal recanalization (TICI 2b‐3), which is associated with poor functional outcomes and higher mortality rates. As a result, there has been growing interest in adjunctive pharmacologic interventions that could enhance the efficacy of ET. The efficacy and safety of tirofiban as an adjunct to ET have not been conclusively established, with existing studies yielding inconsistent results. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of tirofiban in patients undergoing thrombectomy. A comprehensive search was carried out across PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies published through August 2024. For each outcome, odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and heterogeneity was evaluated using the I² statistic. Statistical analyses were performed using R. Results The meta‐analysis included 21 studies evaluating the effect of tirofiban plus ET on successful recanalization (TICI 2b‐3), showing a significant benefit with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.41 (95% CI 1.21‐1.65, p < 0.01), with low heterogeneity (I² = 25%). For excellent functional recovery (mRS 0‐1), 14 studies were analyzed, demonstrating a significant improvement with an OR of 1.17 (95% CI 1.03‐1.34, p = 0.02), and moderate heterogeneity (I² = 37%). In assessing good functional recovery (mRS 0‐2), 25 studies were pooled, and showed a significant effect of tirofiban plus ET with an OR of 1.30 (95% CI 1.19‐1.44, p < 0.01), with low heterogeneity (I² = 24%). Mortality outcomes across multiple studies revealed a significant reduction in mortality (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59‐0.84, p < 0.01), with moderate heterogeneity (I² = 44%). Lastly, for symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), no significant difference was observed (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.75‐1.04, p = 0.14), and heterogeneity was low (I² = 12%). Conclusion In conclusion, the meta‐analysis demonstrates that the addition of tirofiban to Endovascular Therapy (ET) significantly improves successful recanalization and functional recovery (mRS 0‐1 and mRS 0‐2) while reducing mortality, with low to moderate heterogeneity across the included studies. However, no significant difference in the risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) was observed. These findings suggest that Tirofiban plus ET may enhance clinical outcomes in patients undergoing treatment for acute ischemic stroke.

Background For unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs), conservative management is often possible. However, when direct treatment is warranted, endovascular treatments (EVTs) provide an effective minimally invasive approach. These procedures still necessitate careful patient monitoring, frequently in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). The factors leading to ICU admission for these patients remains an area of debate. Objective This systematic review aims to highlight existing literature and identify gaps in understanding the factors contributing to ICU admission following EVTs for UIAs. Methods We utilized the Nested Knowledge Autolit semi‐automated software to gather studies published before April 2024. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and included studies that met predetermined population, intervention, control, and outcomes (PICO) criteria. Statistical analysis was performed using R software. Results We retrieved 181 studies and 9 met our inclusion criteria. There was significant variability across these studies on what factors they reported. Across included studies there were 8,098 patients, with 5,620 requiring ICU admission following EVTs for UIAs. Analysis revealed that anterior aneurysm location, aneurysm‐related symptoms, and procedure length were significant factors leading to ICU admission. The overall ICU admission rate was approximately 24.61 per 100 patients. Conclusion This review underscores the need for further research to understand what factors lead to ICU admission following EVTs for UIAs. Additional studies are needed that use a standardized approach to collect data on patient demographics, aneurysm characteristics, procedural details, and postoperative outcomes. Such studies will allow for concrete recommendations to be made on ICU needs and prognostic calculators to be developed in order to support clinical decisions and lower healthcare costs.

Objective Preclinical studies suggest that robotic carotid artery stenting (CAS) could be superior to manual CAS. However, very limited comparative data exists comparing robotic and manual CAS patients. In addition, no data exists comparing the costs of manual and robotic CAS. Methods All robotic CAS cases at 2 academic neurosurgery centers were retrospectively reviewed and 1:1 propensity matched with manual CAS cases. Personnel costs, supply costs, and total procedure costs were collected in collaboration with hospital administration using time‐driven activity‐based cost‐analysis (TDABC). Results 24 robotic CAS cases were performed between 2019 and 2023. Co‐morbidities and baseline procedural characteristics were well‐matched between robotic and manual cases. Unplanned manual conversion was observed in only one robotic case (4.2%). Robotic CAS complications and outcomes were comparable to manual. Robotic CAS was associated with a significantly increased fluoroscopy time (29.0 vs. 19.2 min.; p<0.001). Robotic procedure time (88.9±18.2 min.) was significantly (p=0.003) higher than manual (68.72±22.4 min.). Health professional costs ($1,589.71±176.92, $1,375.99±233.39, p<0.005), supply cost ($3,918.25±421.20, $2,152.74±1,030.26, p<0.001) and total procedure costs ($5,306.11±608.95, $3,437.56±1,165.67, p<0.001) were greater for robotic CAS. Conclusions With a low rate of technical failure and post‐operative complications, we show robotic carotid artery stenting is safe and feasible in the first multi‐center and largest sample to date. In addition, robotic CAS achieves comparable clinical outcomes. Robotic CAS was associated with increased fluoroscopy time, but fluoroscopy time decreased as operators gained familiarity with the CorPath GRX. Robotic CAS was associated with a greater procedural cost, which was driven by greater personnel and supply costs. Our findings highlight the need for further studies to optimize robotic CAS and reduce its associated costs.