RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to synthesize evidence in the literature to determine the diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam CT (CBCT) for the detection of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and hemorrhage types, including intraparenchymal hemorrhage (IPH), subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), and intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH). METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Our protocol was registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO-CRD42021261915). Systematic searches were last performed on April 30, 2024, in EMBASE, PubMed, Web-of-Science, Scopus, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases. Inclusion criteria were (1) studies reporting diagnostic metrics of CBCT for ICH and (2) studies using a reference standard to determine ICH. Exclusion criteria were (1) case reports, abstracts, reviews and (2) studies without patient-level data. Pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for diagnostic odds ratios (DORs), sensitivity, and specificity using random-effects and common-effects models. Mixed methods appraisal tool was used to evaluate risk of bias. RESULTS: Seven studies were included in the meta-analysis yielding 466 patients. Mean or median age ranged from 54 to 75 years. Female patients represented 51.4% (222 of 432) in reported studies. Multidetector CT was the reference standard in all studies. DOR, pooled sensitivity, and pooled specificity for ICH were 5.28 (95% CI: 4.11-6.46), 0.88 (95% CI: 0.79-0.97), and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-1.0). Pooled sensitivity for IPH, SAH, and IVH was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.95-1.0), 0.82 (95% CI: 0.57-1.0), and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.55-1.0). Pooled specificity for IPH, SAH, and IVH was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-1.0), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97-1.0), and 1.0 (95% CI: 0.98-1.0). DISCUSSION: CBCT had moderate DOR and high pooled specificity for ICH and hemorrhage types. However, pooled sensitivity varied by hemorrhage type, with the highest sensitivity for IPH, followed by SAH and IVH.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Although patients with COVID-19 have a higher risk of acute ischemic stroke (AIS), the impact on stroke outcomes remains uncertain. AIMS: To determine the clinical outcomes of patients with AIS and COVID-19 (AIS-COVID+). METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Our protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020211977). Systematic searches were last performed on June 3, 2021 in EMBASE, PubMed, Web-of-Science, Scopus, and CINAHL Databases. INCLUSION CRITERIA: (1) studies reporting outcomes on AIS-COVID+; (2) original articles published in 2020 or later; (3) study participants aged ≥18 years. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: (1) case reports with <5 patients, abstracts, review articles; (2) studies analyzing novel interventions. Risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Random-effects models estimated the pooled OR and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for mortality, modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score, length of stay (LOS), and discharge disposition. RESULTS: Of the 43 selected studies, 46.5% (20/43) reported patients with AIS without COVID-19 (AIS-COVID-) for comparison. Random-effects model included 7294 AIS-COVID+ and 158 401 AIS-COVID-. Compared with AIS-COVID-, AIS-COVID+ patients had higher in-hospital mortality (OR=3.87 (95% CI 2.75 to 5.45), P<0.001), less mRS scores 0-2 (OR=0.53 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.62), P<0.001), longer LOS (mean difference=4.21 days (95% CI 1.96 to 6.47), P<0.001), and less home discharge (OR=0.31 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.47), P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AIS-COVID had worse outcomes, with almost fourfold increased mortality, half the odds of mRS scores 0-2, and one-third the odds of home discharge. These findings confirm the significant impact of COVID-19 on early stroke outcomes.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Recurrent stroke patients suffer significant morbidity and mortality, representing almost 30% of the stroke population. Our objective was to determine the clinical outcomes and costs of recurrent ischemic stroke (recurrent-IS). METHODS: Our study protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020192709). Following PRISMA guidelines, our medical librarian conducted a search in EMBASE, PubMed, Web-of-Science, Scopus, and CINAHL (last performed on August 25, 2020). INCLUSION CRITERIA: (1) Studies reporting clinical outcomes and/or costs of recurrent-IS; (2) Original research published in English in year 2010 or later; (3) Study participants aged ≥18 years. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: (1) Case reports/studies, abstracts/posters, Editorial letters/reviews; (2) Studies analyzing interventions other than intravenous thrombolysis and thrombectomy. Four independent reviewers selected studies with review of titles/abstracts and full-text, and performed data extraction. Discrepancies were resolved by a senior independent arbitrator. Risk-of-bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. RESULTS: Initial search yielded 20,428 studies. Based on inclusion/exclusion criteria, 9 studies were selected, consisting of 24,499 recurrent-IS patients. In 5 studies, recurrent-IS ranged from 4.4-56.8% of the ischemic stroke cohorts at 3 or 12 months, or undefined follow-up. Mean age was 60-80 years and female proportions were 38.5-61.1%. Clinical outcomes included mortality 11.6-25.9% for in-hospital, 30-days, or 4-years (3 studies). In one study from the U.S., mean in-hospital costs were $17,121(SD-$53,693) and 1-year disability costs were $34,639(SD-$76,586) per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the paucity of data on clinical outcomes and costs of recurrent-IS and identifies gaps in existing literature to direct future research.

Asunto(s)