scholarly journals P.063 Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke in Patients with Pre-morbid Disability: A Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 48 (s3) ◽  
pp. S37-S37
Author(s):  
F Bala ◽  
B Beland ◽  
A Ganesh
Keyword(s):  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Endovascular Treatment ◽  
Random Effects ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Endovascular Thrombectomy ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Stroke Disability

Background: Practice-changing trials of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for acute stroke excluded patients with pre-morbid disability. Observational studies may inform the role of EVT in this population. We performed a meta-analysis to estimate the effect of EVT in patients with pre-morbid disability. Methods: We adhered to PRISMA guidelines and searched Medline and Embase for studies describing EVT in adults with and without pre-morbid disability with stroke. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool outcomes, including favorable outcomes (mRS=0-2 or return to baseline), no increase in disability at 90 days, symptomatic ICH (sICH) and 90-day mortality. Results: We included 8 studies with 5570 patients (mRS 3-5=863, mRS 0-2=4,707). Patients with pre-morbid disability were more likely to return to their baseline mRS (aOR 2.53, 95% CI=1.47-4.36), although they had higher 90-day mortality (aOR=2.21, 95% CI=1.66-2.93). aOR for favorable outcome (aOR=0.83, 95% CI=0.67-1.03) or sICH (aOR=1.07, 95% CI=0.74-1.54) was not significantly different between groups. Conclusions: Observational studies suggest that EVT is safe in patients with pre-stroke disability and may result in comparable return to pre-stroke status as in patients without such disability. These findings argue against the routine exclusion of patients with pre-morbid disability from EVT and merit validation with randomized controlled trials.

Mechanical Thromboprophylaxis in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2006 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 402-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Limpus ◽  
Wendy Chaboyer ◽  
Ellen McDonald ◽  
Lukman Thalib
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Intensive Care Patients ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Confounding Variables

• Objective To systematically review the randomized trials, observational studies, and survey evidence on compression and pneumatic devices for thromboprophylaxis in intensive care patients. • Methods Published studies on the use of compression and pneumatic devices in intensive care patients were assessed. A meta-analysis was conducted by using the randomized controlled trials. • Results A total of 21 relevant studies (5 randomized controlled trials, 13 observational studies, and 3 surveys) were found. A total of 811 patients were randomized in the 5 randomized controlled trials; 3421 patients participated in the observational studies. Trauma patients only were enrolled in 4 randomized controlled trials and 4 observational studies. Meta-analysis of 2 randomized controlled trials with similar populations and outcomes revealed that use of compression and pneumatic devices did not reduce the incidence of venous thromboembolism. The pooled risk ratio was 2.37, indicative of favoring the control over the intervention in reducing the deep venous thrombosis; however, the 95% CI of 0.57 to 9.90 indicated no significant differences between the intervention and the control. A range of methodological issues, including bias and confounding variables, make meaningful interpretation of the observational studies difficult. • Conclusions The limited evidence suggests that use of compressive and pneumatic devices yields results not significantly different from results obtained with no treatment or use of low-molecular-weight heparin. Until large randomized controlled trials are conducted, the role of mechanical approaches to thromboprophylaxis for intensive care patients remains uncertain.

scholarly journals Improved clinical outcome 3 months after endovascular treatment, including thrombectomy, in patients with acute ischemic stroke: a meta-analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. 665-670 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Falk-Delgado ◽  
Åsa Kuntze Söderqvist ◽  
Jian Fransén ◽  
Alberto Falk-Delgado
Keyword(s):  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Endovascular Treatment ◽  
Acute Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Neurological Outcome ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Intravenous Thrombolysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Background and purposeIntravenous thrombolysis with tissue plasminogen activator is standard treatment in acute stroke today. The benefit of endovascular treatment has been questioned. Recently, studies evaluating endovascular treatment and intravenous thrombolysis compared with intravenous thrombolysis alone, have reported improved outcome for the intervention group. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing endovascular treatment in addition to intravenous thrombolysis with intravenous thrombolysis alone.MethodsDatabases were searched for eligible randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was a functional neurological outcome after 90 days. A secondary outcome was severe disability and death. Data were pooled in the control and intervention groups, and OR was calculated on an intention to treat basis with 95% CIs. Outcome heterogeneity was evaluated with Cochrane's Q test (significance level cut-off value at <0.10) and I2 (significance cut-off value >50%) with the Mantel–Haenszel method for dichotomous outcomes. A p value <0.05 was regarded as statistically significant.ResultsSix studies met the eligibility criteria, and data from 1569 patients were analyzed. A higher probability of a functional neurological outcome after 90 days was found for the intervention group (OR 2, 95% CI 2 to 3). There was a significantly higher probability of death and severe disability in the control group compared with the intervention group.ConclusionsEndovascular treatment in addition to intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke leads to an improved clinical outcome after 3 months, compared with patients receiving intravenous thrombolysis alone.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document