Objectives. The objectives of this study were to identify the clinical features and chest computed tomography (CT) findings of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and to compare the characteristics of patients diagnosed in Wuhan and in other areas of China by integrating the findings reported in previous studies.Methods. We conducted a proportion meta-analysis to integrate the results of previous studies identified in online databases, and subsequently compared the overlapping of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between locations of diagnosis. The heterogeneity of the results of the included studies was also demonstrated.Results. Nine studies with level IV evidence were considered to be eligible for the meta-analysis, and a comparative analysis was only possible between patients diagnosed in Wuhan and outside of Wuhan in China. Fever (84.8%; 95% CI, 78.5% to 90.1%) was identified as the most common clinical manifestation in all COVID-19 patients, and signs of respiratory infection were also frequently present in these patients. When comparing the clinical features according to the location of diagnosis, fever and dyspnea were less frequent in patients diagnosed outside of Wuhan (fever: 78.1%; 95% CI, 73.2% to 82.7%; dyspnea: 3.80%; 95% CI, 0.13% to 12.22%) than in patients diagnosed in Wuhan (fever: 91.7%; 95% CI, 88.0% to 94.8%; dyspnea: 21.1%; 95% CI, 13.2% to 30.3%). The chest CT findings exhibited no significant differences between the groups.Conclusion. Fever was found to be the most common symptom in COVID-19, and respiratory infection signs were also commonly present. Fever and dyspnea were less frequently observed in the patients diagnosed outside of Wuhan, which should be considered in COVID-19 screening programs. These results may be attributable to the earlier diagnosis of the disease and the younger age of patients outside of Wuhan although further analysis is needed. The role of chest CT in COVID-19 diagnosis is inconclusive based on this study.
BackgroundThe impact of various stents on patients with intracranial aneurysms who undergo stent-assisted coiling has been debated. We conducted this study to compare follow-up outcomes of coiling procedures involving braided or laser-cut stents with closed-cell design. A propensity score-matched case-controlled analysis was applied.MethodsA total of 413 intracranial aneurysms consecutively coiled using laser-cut (n=245) or braided stents (n=168) in procedures performed between September 2012 and June 2017 were eligible for study. Time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography, catheter angiography, or both were used to gauge occlusive status after coiling. Recanalization was determined by Raymond classification (complete occlusion vs recanalization). A propensity score-matched analysis was conducted, based on probability of stent type in use.ResultsUltimately, 93 coiled aneurysms (22.5%) showed some recanalization (minor, 51; major, 42) during the follow-up period (mean 21.7±14.5 months). Patient gender (P=0.042), hyperlipidemia (P=0.015), size of aneurysm (P=0.004), neck size (P<0.001), type of aneurysm (P<0.001), and packing density (P=0.024) differed significantly by group. Midterm and cumulative recanalization incidence rates in the braided-stent group were initially lower than those of the laser-cut stent group (P=0.009 and P=0.037, respectively) but they did not differ significantly after 1:1 propensity score matching (midterm OR=0.88, P=0.724; cumulative HR=0.91, P=0.758).ConclusionIn stent-assisted coiling of intracranial aneurysms, laser-cut and braided stent groups produced similar outcomes in follow-up. Consequently, product selection may hinge on suitability for deployment rather than anticipated results.
Above findings demonstrate that in addition to occlusive status at time of coil embolization and neck size, stent type may affect follow-up outcomes of stent-assisted coil embolization in small-sized aneurysms. LVIS (vs Enterprise or Neuroform stents) performed best during follow-up monitoring in terms of limiting recanalization.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.