IntroductionCurrent published guidelines and meta-analyses comparing endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) alone versus EVT with bridging intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) suggest that EVT alone is non-inferior to EVT with bridging thrombolysis in achieving favourable functional outcome. Because of this controversy, we aimed to systematically update the evidence and meta-analyse data from randomised trials comparing EVT alone versus EVT with bridging thrombolysis, and performed an economic evaluation comparing both strategies.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials comparing EVT with or without bridging thrombolysis in patients presenting with large vessel occlusions. We will identify eligible studies by systematically searching the following databases from inception without any language restrictions: MEDLINE (through Ovid), Embase and the Cochrane Library. The following criteria will be used to assess eligibility for inclusion: (1) adult patients ≥18 years old; (2) randomised patients to EVT alone or to EVT with IVT; and (3) measured outcomes, including functional outcomes, at least 90 days after randomisation. Pairs of reviewers will independently screen the identified articles, extract information and assess the risk of bias of eligible studies. We will use the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool to evaluate risk of bias. We will also use the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty in evidence for each outcome. We will then perform an economic evaluation based on the extracted data.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will not require a research ethics approval because no confidential patient data will be used. We will disseminate our findings by publishing the results in a peer-reviewed journal and via presentation at conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42022315608.
Introduction: There is clinical equipoise behind bridging intravenous thrombolysis (BT) with endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing BT versus EVT alone. Methods: We conducted a model-based cost-utility analysis comparing the cost-effectiveness of BT vs EVT only for patients with acute ischemic stroke. We used a decision tree to examine the short-term costs and outcomes at 90 days after the index stroke, and developed a Markov state transition model to assess the costs and outcomes over 1-year, 5-year, and 20-year time horizons. Clinical outcome inputs were derived from our systematic review. We considered the impact of disability and recurrent stroke on mortality risk, health-related quality of life, and costs. We estimated total and incremental cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Probabilistic analysis was used to calculate the reference case estimates. Results: The average costs per patient were estimated to be $55,503, $57,814, $68,183, and $84,946 for EVT only strategy, and $47,311, $49,556, $59,625, and $75,898 for BT over 90-day, 1-year, 5-year, and 20-year, respectively. The cost saving of EVT only strategy was driven by the avoided medication costs of IVT (ranging from $8,193 to $9,048). The additional thrombolytics led to slight decrease in QALY estimate during the 90-day time horizon (loss of 0.0016 QALY), but a small gain over 1-year, 5-year, and 20-year time horizons (0.0108, 0.0638, and 0.1481 QALY). With similar outcomes and less cost, the EVT only strategy was cost-effective compared with BT. Analyses with longer time horizon show lower probabilities of EVT only strategy being cost-effective. At a fixed willingness to pay threshold of $50,000, the probabilities of EVT only to be cost-effective were 100%, 100%, 99.0%, and 65.9% over 90-day, 1-year, 5-year, and 20-year time horizons. At the willingness to pay thresholds of $100,000 per QALY, the probabilities of EVT only strategy being cost-effective was 22.8% over the 20-year time horizon. Conclusions: Our cost-effectiveness model suggested that bridging with thrombolytics may not be cost-effective for patients with acute ischemic stroke secondary to large vessel occlusion.
BackgroundThe transradial approach (TRA) for neurointerventional procedures is increasingly being used given its technical feasibility and safety. However, catheter trackability and device deliverability are reported barriers to TRA adoption.MethodsThis is the first report describing the technical feasibility and performance of using the Zoom RDL Radial Access System (Imperative Care, Inc., Campbell, CA) in 29 patients who underwent neurointerventional procedures from October 2022 to January 2023 in a single-center institution.ResultsMean age of the study population was 61.9±17.2 years, 79.3% were male (23/29), and 62.1% were black (18/29). The most common procedures were stroke thrombectomy (31.0%, 9/29) and aneurysm embolization (27.6%, 8/29). All the stroke thrombectomy procedures were successfully performed; first-pass effect rate (mTICI≥2 c in one pass) was achieved in 66.7% (6/9) of cases. We used TRA in 86.2% of cases (25/29), including distal radial/snuffbox access in 31.0% (9/29) of cases. The radial diameter was >2 mm for all cases. An intermediate/aspiration catheter was used in 89.7% (26/29) of cases. Access success was achieved in 89.7% of cases (26/29); two cases required conversion from TRA to transfemoral approach (6.9%) and one case required conversion to a different guide catheter (3.4%). There were no access site complications or other Zoom RDL-related complications. One intracerebral hemorrhage, and one procedure-related thrombus were observed.ConclusionsThe use of Zoom RDL Radial Access System is technically feasible and effective for complex neurointerventional procedures with low complication rates.
Primary chondrosarcoma is the third most frequent primary malignancy of bone after myeloma and osteosarcoma. It is ranging from slow growing nonmetastasising lesions to highly aggressive lesions. We report a case of primary intramedullary chondrosarcoma of proximal humerus. A 60-year-old female presented with pain and hard swelling involving the left arm for 5 months. Radiograph showed a lucent expansile intramedullary lesion with matrix calcification and associated soft tissue mass. CT confirmed the finding. MRI showed a lobulated lesion which is hyperintense on T2WI with low signal fibrous septae. Increased tracer uptake was seen on bone scan. Histopathology confirmed the radiology diagnosis. The patient underwent wide resection and endoprosthetic reconstruction of proximal humerus.
Introduction There has been an increase in use of ticagrelor in patients with ischemic stroke, particularly in the setting of clopidogrel resistance. Our study aims to retrospectively determine if aspirin plus ticagrelor at a reduced dose is effective in reducing the risk of recurrent stroke and/or other thrombotic events, without increasing the risk of bleeding. Methods In a prospectively maintained database, we performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with acute ischemic stroke in a large academic comprehensive stroke center between September 1, 2020 to July 1, 2022. We compared in‐hospital mortality, 90‐day mortality, favorable functional outcome, defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0 to 2, at 90 days, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), and asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), between patients on reduced‐dose ticagrelor versus those on full‐dose ticagrelor, in unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models. Results We included 567 patients in our study. The mean age of these patients was 67.0 ± 15.0 years. Females represented 59.5% of the patients, and the majority of the patients were Black (80.0%). Intracranial atherosclerotic disease was the presumed stroke etiology in 96 patients (17.0%). Out of 567 patients, 432 were on a combination of both ticagrelor and aspirin. A total of 62 patients were on a reduced dose of ticagrelor (45 mg or 60 mg twice daily). The remaining 505 patients were on 90 mg twice daily dosing. New or recurrent ischemic stroke was similar across both groups (10.2% vs. 12.0%, p = 0.08). Symptomatic ICH was also found to be similar across both groups (8.2% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.06). Mortality or favorable functional outcome at 90 days also did not differ between the two groups (25.3% vs. 24.7%, p = 0.007; 28.2% vs. 27.3%, p = 0.006). Conclusions A lower dose of ticagrelor (45 or 60 mg twice daily) appears to be a safe and effective regimen in reducing risk of ischemic strokes without increasing hemorrhagic complications when compared to full‐dose ticagrelor at 90 mg twice daily. Further randomized trials are necessary to inform this recommendation.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.