Endovascular Treatment with Stent-Retriever Devices for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Importance

Acute ischemic stroke is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Several recent clinical trials have shown that endovascular treatment improves clinical outcomes among patients with acute ischemic stroke.

Objective

To provide an overall and precise estimate of the efficacy of endovascular treatment predominantly using second-generation mechanical thrombectomy devices (stent-retriever devices) compared to medical management on clinical and functional outcomes among patients with acute ischemic stroke.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, Web of Science, and NIH ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through November 2015.

Study Selection

Searches returned 3,045 articles. After removal of duplicates, two authors independently screened titles and abstracts to assess eligibility of 2,495 potentially relevant publications. From these, 38 full-text publications were more closely assessed. Finally, 5 randomized controlled trials of endovascular treatment with predominant use of retrievable stents were selected.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Three authors independently extracted information on participant and trial characteristics and clinical events using a standardized protocol. Random effects models were used to pool endovascular treatment effects across outcomes.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was better functional outcome as measured on the modified Rankin Scale at 90 days of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and symptomatic intra-cerebral hemorrhage.

Results

Five trials representing 1,287 patients were included. Overall, patients randomized to endovascular therapy experienced 2.22 times greater odds of better functional outcome compared to those randomized to medical management (95% CI, 1.66 to 2.98; P < 0.0001). Endovascular therapy was not associated with mortality [OR (95% CI), 0.78 (0.54, 1.12); P = 0.1056] or symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage [OR (95% CI), 1.19 (0.69, 2.05); P = 0.5348]. Meta-regression analysis suggested that shorter times from stroke onset to groin puncture and from stroke onset to reperfusion result in better functional outcomes in ischemic stroke patients (P = 0.0077 and P = 0.0089). There were no significant differences in the beneficial effects of endovascular treatment on functional outcomes across categories of gender, age, stroke severity, ischemic changes on computed tomography, or intravenous tissue plasminogen activator administration.

Conclusions and Relevance

This meta-analysis demonstrated superior functional outcomes in subjects receiving endovascular treatment compared to medical management. Further, this analysis showed that acute ischemic stroke patients may receive enhanced functional benefit from earlier endovascular treatment.     

Efficacy and Safety of Endovascular Treatment versus Intravenous Thrombolysis for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background and Purpose

Although endovascular therapy (ET) is increasingly used in patients with moderate to severe acute ischemic stroke, its efficacy and safety remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis aiming to compare the benefits and safety of endovascular treatment and intravenous thrombolysis in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Science direct and Springer unitil July, 2013. The primary outcomes included good outcome (mRS ≤ 2) and excellent outcome (mRS ≤ 1) at 90 days or at trial end point. Secondary outcomes were occurrence of symptomatic hemorrhage and all-cause mortality.

Results

Using a prespecified search strategy, 5 RCTs with 1106 patients comparing ET and intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) were included in the meta-analysis. ET and IVT were associated with similar good (43.06% vs 41.78%; OR=1.14; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.69; P=0.52;) and excellent (30.43% vs 30.42%; OR=1.05; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.38; P=0.72;) outcome. For additional end points, ET was not associated with increased occurrence of symptomatic hemorrhage (6.25% vs. 6.22%; OR=1.03; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.69; P=0.91;), or all-cause mortality (18.45% vs. 17.35%; OR=1.00; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.39; P=0.99;).

Conclusions

Formal meta-analysis indicates that there are similar safety outcomes and functional independence with endovascular therapy and intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke.     

Acute Endovascular Reperfusion Therapy in Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke have had inconsistent results. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of endovascular therapy in published RCTs.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of RCTs of endovascular therapy with thrombolytic or mechanical reperfusion compared with interventions without endovascular therapy. Primary outcome was the frequency of good functional outcome (modified Rankin scale (mRS) of 0-2 at 90 days) and secondary outcomes were mortality at 90 days and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). Random-effects meta-analysis was performed and the Cochrane risk of bias assessment was used to evaluate quality of evidence.

Results

Ten studies involving 1,612 subjects were included. Endovascular therapy was not significantly associated with good functional outcome (Relative Risk [RR] =1.17; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.42; p=0.10 and Absolute Risk Difference [ARD] =7%; 95%CI -0.1% to 14%; p=0.05); heterogeneity was moderate among studies (I²=30%). Mortality was unchanged with endovascular therapy (RR=0.92; 95 % CI, 0.75 to 1.13; p=0.45) and there was no difference in sICH (RR=1.20; 95 % CI, 0.79 to 1.82; p=0.39). The quality of evidence was low for all outcomes and the recommendation is weak for the use of endovascular therapy as per GRADE methodology.

Conclusions

Intra-arterial therapy did not show significant increase in good outcomes and no changes in either mortality or sICH in patients with acute ischemic stroke. We need further RCTs with better design and quality to evaluate the true efficacy of endovascular therapy.     

Effect of Low-Frequency rTMS on Aphasia in Stroke Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Small clinical trials have reported that low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) might improve language recovery in patients with aphasia after stroke. However, no systematic reviews or meta-analyses studies have investigated the effect of rTMS on aphasia. The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of studies that explored the effects of low-frequency rTMS on aphasia in stroke patients.

Methods

We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, CINAHL, ScienceDirect, and Journals@Ovid for randomized controlled trials published between January 1965 and October 2013 using the keywords “aphasia OR language disorders OR anomia OR linguistic disorders AND repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation OR rTMS”. We used fixed- and random-effects models to estimate the standardized mean difference (SMD) and a 95% CI for the language outcomes.

Results

Seven eligible studies involving 160 stroke patients were identified in this meta-analysis. A significant effect size of 1.26 was found for the language outcome severity of impairment (95% CI = 0.80 to 1.71) without heterogeneity (I² = 0%, P = 0.44). Further analyses demonstrated prominent effects for the naming subtest (SMD = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.18 to 0.87), repetition (SMD = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.16 to 0.92), writing (SMD = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.19 to 1.22), and comprehension (the Token test: SMD = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.07 to 1.09) without heterogeneity (I² = 0%). The SMD of AAT and BDAE comprehension subtests was 0.32 (95% CI = −0.08 to 0.72) with moderate heterogeneity (I² = 32%,P = 0.22). The effect size did not change significantly even when any one trial was eliminated. None of the patients from the 7 included articles reported adverse effects from rTMS.

Conclusions

Low-frequency rTMS with a 90% resting motor threshold that targets the triangular part of the right inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) has a positive effect on language recovery in patients with aphasia following stroke. Further well-designed studies with larger populations are required to ascertain the long-term effects of rTMS in aphasia treatment.     

Effect of B-vitamin Supplementation on Stroke: a Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

B vitamins have been extensively used to reduce homocysteine levels; however, it remains uncertain whether B vitamins are associated with a reduced risk of stroke. Our aim was to evaluate the effects of B vitamins on stroke.

Methodology and Principal findings

We systematically searched PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify studies for our analysis. Relative risk (RR) was used to measure the effect of B-vitamin supplementation on the risk of stroke. The analysis was further stratified based on factors that could affect the treatment effects. Of the 13,124 identified articles, we included 18 trials reporting data on 57,143 individuals and 2,555 stroke events. B-vitamin supplementation was not associated with a significant reduction in the risk of stroke (RR, 0.91, 95%CI: 0.82–1.01, P = 0.075; RD, -0.003, 95%CI: -0.007–0.001, P = 0.134). Subgroup analyses suggested that B-vitamin supplementation might reduce the risk of stroke if included trials had a man/woman ratio of more than 2 or subjects received dose of folic acid less than 1 mg. Furthermore, in a cumulative meta-analysis for stroke, the originally proposed nonsignificant B-vitamin effect was refuted by the evidence accumulated up to 2006. There is a small effect with borderline statistical significance based on data gathered since 2007.

Conclusions/Significance

Our study indicates that B-vitamin supplementation is not associated with a lower risk of stroke based on relative and absolute measures of association. Subgroup analyses suggested that B-vitamin supplementation can effectively reduce the risk of stroke if included trials had a man/woman ratio of more than 2 or subjects received dose of folic acid less than 1 mg.     

Efficacy of Supplementation with B Vitamins for Stroke Prevention: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Supplementation with B vitamins for stroke prevention has been evaluated over the years, but which combination of B vitamins is optimal for stroke prevention is unclear. We performed a network meta-analysis to assess the impact of different combinations of B vitamins on risk of stroke.

Methods

A total of 17 trials (86 393 patients) comparing 7 treatment strategies and placebo were included. A network meta-analysis combined all available direct and indirect treatment comparisons to evaluate the efficacy of B vitamin supplementation for all interventions.

Results

B vitamin supplementation was associated with reduced risk of stroke and cerebral hemorrhage. The risk of stroke was lower with folic acid plus vitamin B6 as compared with folic acid plus vitamin B12 and was lower with folic acid plus vitamin B6 plus vitamin B12 as compared with placebo or folic acid plus vitamin B12. The treatments ranked in order of efficacy for stroke, from higher to lower, were folic acid plus vitamin B6 > folic acid > folic acid plus vitamin B6 plus vitamin B12 > vitamin B6 plus vitamin B12 > niacin > vitamin B6 > placebo > folic acid plus vitamin B12.

Conclusions

B vitamin supplementation was associated with reduced risk of stroke; different B vitamins and their combined treatments had different efficacy on stroke prevention. Folic acid plus vitamin B6 might be the optimal therapy for stroke prevention. Folic acid and vitamin B6 were both valuable for stroke prevention. The efficacy of vitamin B12 remains to be studied.     

Cinacalcet in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: A Cumulative Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Calcimimetic agents lower serum parathyroid hormone levels in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD), but treatment effects on patient-relevant outcomes are uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the benefits and harms of calcimimetic therapy in adults with CKD and used cumulative meta-analysis to identify how evidence for calcimimetic treatment has developed in this clinical setting.

Methods and Findings

Cochrane and Embase databases (through February 7, 2013) were electronically searched to identify randomized trials evaluating effects of calcimimetic therapy on mortality and adverse events in adults with CKD. Two independent reviewers identified trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.Eighteen trials comprising 7,446 participants compared cinacalcet plus conventional therapy with placebo or no treatment plus conventional therapy in adults with CKD. In moderate- to high-quality evidence (based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria) in adults with CKD stage 5D (dialysis), cinacalcet had little or no effect on all-cause mortality (relative risk, 0.97 [95% confidence interval, 0.89–1.05]), had imprecise effect on cardiovascular mortality (0.67 [0.16–2.87]), and prevented parathyroidectomy (0.49 [0.40–0.59]) and hypercalcemia (0.23 [0.05–0.97]), but increased hypocalcemia (6.98 [5.10–9.53]), nausea (2.02 [1.45–2.81]), and vomiting (1.97 [1.73–2.24]). Data for clinical outcomes were sparse in adults with CKD stages 3–5. On average, treating 1,000 people with CKD stage 5D for 1 y had no effect on survival and prevented about three patients from experiencing parathyroidectomy, whilst 60 experienced hypocalcemia and 150 experienced nausea. Analyses were limited by insufficient data in CKD stages 3–5 and kidney transplant recipients.

Conclusions

Cinacalcet reduces the need for parathyroidectomy in patients with CKD stage 5D, but does not appear to improve all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. Additional trials in CKD stage 5D are unlikely to change our confidence in the treatment effects of cinacalcet in this population. Please see later in the article for the Editors'' Summary     

Dezocine for Preventing Postoperative Pain: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Dezocine is considered to be an alternative medication for managing postoperative pain. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of this drug in this regard.

Methods

Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL) were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare dezocine with placebo or dezocine with morphine on postoperative pain. The data were extracted and pooled using Mantel-Haenszel random effects model. Heterogeneity was tested using the I ² statistic with values >50% and Chi² test with P ≤ 0.05 indicating obvious heterogeneity between the studies.

Results

Seven trials evaluating 665 patients were included. The number of patients with at least 50% pain relief was increased (N = 234; RR 3.04, 95% CI 2.27 to 4.08) and physician (N = 465; RR 2.84, 95% CI 1.66 to 4.84) and patient satisfaction (N = 390; RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.85 to 4.26) were improved following the administration of dezocine compared with the placebo. The effects of dezocine were similar to those of morphine in terms of the number of patients reporting at least 50% pain relief within 2–6 h after surgery (N = 235; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.46) and physician (N = 234; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.49) and patient (N = 158; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.92) satisfaction. While, the number of patients with at least 50% pain relief within 0–1 h after surgery increased following dezocine compared with morphine treatment (N = 79; RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.77). There was no difference in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) following dezocine treatment compared with the placebo (N = 391; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.68) or morphine treatment (N = 235; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.93).

Conclusion

Dezocine is a promising analgesic for preventing postoperative pain, but further studies are required to evaluate its safety.     

Efficacy of Corneal Collagen Cross-Linking for Treatment of Keratoconus: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of corneal collagen cross-linking (CXL) for the treatment of keratoconus.MethodsWe performed a literature search for randomized controlled trials that assessed the effect of CXL in slowing progression of keratoconus. The primary outcome measures included changes of topographic parameters, visual acuity, and refraction. Efficacy estimates were evaluated by weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for absolute changes of the interested outcomes.ResultsSignificant decrease in mean keratometry value, maximum keratometry value and minimum keratometry value were demonstrated in the CXL group compared with the control group (WMD = -1.65; 95% CI: -2.51 to -0.80; P < 0.00001; WMD = -2.05; 95% CI: -3.10 to -1.00; P < 0.00001; WMD = -1.94; 95% CI: -2.63 to -1.26; P < 0.00001; respectively). Best spectacle-corrected visual acuity improved significantly in CXL group (WMD = -0.10; 95% CI: -0.15 to -0.05; P < 0.00001), whereas uncorrected visual acuity did not differ statistically. Manifest cylinder error decreased significantly in patients undergoing CXL procedure compared with control patients in sensitivity analysis (WMD = -0.388; 95% CI: -0.757 to -0. 019; P = 0.04). The changes in central corneal thickness and intraocular pressure were not statistically significant.ConclusionCXL may be an effective option in stabilizing keratoconus. Further long-term follow-up studies will be necessary to assess the persistence of CXL.     

Early versus Deferred Treatment for Smoldering Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized,Controlled Trials

Purpose

Whether patients with smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) needed to receive early interventional treatment remains controversial. Herein, we conducted a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of early treatment over deferred treatment for patients with SMM.

Methods

MEDLINE and Cochrane Library were searched to May 2014 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effect of early treatment over deferred treatment. Primary outcome measure was mortality, and secondary outcome measures were progression, response rate, and adverse events.

Results

Overall, 5 trials including 449 patients were identified. There was a markedly reduced risk of disease progression with early treatment (Odds Ratio [OR] = 0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.07 to 0.24). There were no significant differences in mortality and response rate (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.45 to 1.60, and OR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.32 to 1.23, respectively). More patients in the early treatment arm experienced gastrointestinal toxicities (OR = 10.02, 95%CI = 4.32 to 23.23), constipation (OR = 8.58, 95%CI = 3.20 to 23.00) and fatigue or asthenia (OR = 2.72, 95%CI = 1.30 to 5.67). No significant differences were seen with the development of acute leukemia (OR = 2.80, 95%CI = 0.42 to 18.81), hematologic cancer (OR = 2.07, 95%CI = 0.43 to 10.01), second primary tumors (OR = 3.45, 95%CI = 0.81 to 14.68), nor vertebral compression (OR = 0.18, 95%CI = 0.02 to 1.59).

Conclusions

Early treatment delayed disease progression but increased the risk of gastrointestinal toxicities, constipation and fatigue or asthenia. The differences on vertebral compression, acute leukemia, hematological cancer and second primary tumors were not statistically significant. Based on the current evidence, early treatment didn’t significantly affect mortality and response rate. However, further much larger trials were needed to provide more evidence.     

Comparison of Operative and Non-Operative Treatment of Acute Undisplaced or Minimally-Displaced Scaphoid Fractures: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Traditionally, acute undisplaced or minimally-displaced scaphoid fractures are treated by casting in short- or long-arm casts. Although reports have shown that operative treatment is safe, effective and produces satisfactory results, outcomes from current studies comparing these two methods are questionable. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of operative versus non-operative treatment for acute undisplaced or minimally-displaced scaphoid fractures in adults.

Methods

Computerized searches were performed without language restrictions and all randomized controlled studies providing information on the effects of operative versus non-operative treatment on the outcomes of acute undisplaced or minimally-displaced scaphoid fractures were included. The weighted and standard mean difference (WMD and SMD) or the relative risk (RR) were calculated for continuous or dichotomous data respectively.

Results

A total of six studies reported in seven publications were included, representing data on 340 fractures. Meta-analysis indicated that operative treatment resulted in significantly better functional outcomes in the short term when compared with non-operative treatment. Consistently, patients who accepted surgery had a more rapid return to work. Further, surgery was advantageous in preventing delayed union of the fractures, a finding supported by the results of analysis of the time to fracture union. A number-needed-to-treat analysis revealed that more than 20 patients would have to undergo operative treatment to prevent one delayed union.

Conclusion

Acute undisplaced or minimally-displaced scaphoid fractures demonstrate faster recovery with operative treatment; however, the current meta-analysis does not provide evidence supporting the routine use of operative treatment for all acute undisplaced or minimally-displaced scaphoid fractures.     

Propofol versus Midazolam for Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Cirrhotic Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BackgroundSedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy is often achieved using propofol or midazolam in general population. However, impaired protein synthesis, altered drug metabolism, and compromised hepatic blood flow in patients with liver cirrhosis might affect the pharmacokinetics of sedatives, placing cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy at a greater risk of adverse events. The objective of this study was to assess comparative efficacies and safety of propofol and midazolam in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy.MethodsRandomized, controlled trials comparing propofol with midazolam in cirrhotic patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were selected. We performed the meta-analysis, using a random-effect model, the Review Manager, Version 5.2, statistical software package (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) according to the PRISMA guidelines.ResultsFive studies between 2003 and 2012, including 433 patients, were included. Propofol provided a shorter time to sedation (weight mean difference: -2.76 min, 95% confidence interval: -3.00 to -2.51) and a shorter recovery time (weight mean difference -6.17 min, 95% confidence interval: -6.81 to -5.54) than midazolam did. No intergroup difference in the incidence of hypotension, bradycardia, or hypoxemia was observed. Midazolam was associated with the deterioration of psychometric scores for a longer period than propofol.ConclusionThis meta-analysis suggests that Propofol sedation for endoscopy provides more rapid sedation and recovery than midazolam does. The risk of sedation-related side effects for propofol does not differ significantly from that of midazolam. The efficacy of propofol in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy is superior to those of midazolam.     

Early Sitting in Ischemic Stroke Patients (SEVEL): A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Extended immobility has been associated with medical complications during hospitalization. However no clear recommendations are available for mobilization of ischemic stroke patients.

Objective

As early mobilization has been shown to be feasible and safe, we tested the hypothesis that early sitting could be beneficial to stroke patient outcome.

Methods

This prospective multicenter study tested two sitting procedures at the acute phase of ischemic stroke, in a randomized controlled fashion (clinicaltrials.org registration number {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01573299","term_id":"NCT01573299"}}NCT01573299). Patients were eligible if they were above 18 years of age and showed no sign of massive infarction or any contra-indication for sitting. In the early-sitting group, patients were seated out of bed at the earliest possible time but no later than one calendar day after stroke onset, whereas the progressively-sitting group was first seated out of bed on the third calendar day after stroke onset. Primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients with a modified Rankin score [0–2] at 3 months post stroke. Secondary outcome measures were a.) prevalence of medical complications, b.) length of hospital stay, and c.) tolerance to the procedure.

Results

One hundred sixty seven patients were included in the study, of which 29 were excluded after randomization. Data from 138 patients, 63 in the early-sitting group and 75 in the progressively-sitting group were analyzed. There was no difference regarding outcome of people with stroke, with a proportion of Rankin [0–2] score at 3 months of 76.2% and 77.3% of patients in the early- and progressive-sitting groups, respectively (p = 0.52). There was also no difference between groups for secondary outcome measures, and the procedure was well tolerated in both arms.

Conclusion

Due to a slow enrollment, fewer patients than anticipated were available for analysis. As a result, we can only detect beneficial/detrimental effects of +/- 15% of the early sitting procedure on stroke outcome with a realized 37% power. However, enrollment was sufficient to rule out effect sizes greater than 25% with 80% power, indicating that early sitting is unlikely to have an extreme effect in either direction on stroke outcome. Additionally, we were not able to provide a blinded assessment of the primary outcome. Taking these limitations into account, our results may help guide the development of more effective acute stroke rehabilitation strategies, and the design of future acute stroke trials involving out of bed activities and other mobilization regimens.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01573299","term_id":"NCT01573299"}}NCT01573299     

Effect of Clazosentan in Patients with Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Cerebral vasospasm is the most important potentially treatable cause of mortality and morbidity following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). Clazosentan, a selective endothelinreceptor antagonist, has been suggested to help reduce the incidence of vasospasm in patients with aSAH. However, the results were controversial in previous trials. This meta-analysis attempts to assess the effect of clazosentan in patients with aSAH.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We systematically searched Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from their inception until June, 2012. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to the effect of clazosentan in aSAH were included. The primary outcomes included the incidence of angiographic vasospasm, new cerebral infarction (NCI), delayed ischemic neurological deficits (DIND), and vasospasm-related morbidity/mortality (M/M); the second outcomes included the occurrence of rescue therapy, all-cause-mortality, and poor outcome. 4 RCTs were included with a total of 2156 patients. The risk of angiographic vasospasm (relative risk [RR] = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.71), DIND (RR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.92), and vasospasm-related M/M (RR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.96) were statistically significantly reduced in the clazosentan group. Patients treated with clazosentan had a reduced occurrence of rescue therapy (RR = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.79). However, no statistically significant effects were observed in NCI (RR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.04), mortality (RR = 1.03; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.49), and poor outcome (RR = 1.12; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.30).

Conclusions/Significance

Our pooling data supports that clazosentan is probably effective in preventing the occurrence of angiographic vasospasm, vasospasm-related DIND, vasospasm related M/M, and rescue therapy. However, no evidence lends significant supports to the benefits of clazosentan in decreasing the occurrence of NCI, mortality or improving the functional outcome.     

The Effect of Statins on Mortality in Septic Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective

Statins are among the most prescribed drugs worldwide and their recently discovered anti-inflammatory effect seems to have an important role in inhibiting proinflammatory cytokine production, chemokines expression and counteracting the harmful effects of sepsis on the coagulation system. We decided to perform a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials ever published on statin therapy in septic patients to evaluate their effect on survival and length of hospital stay.

Data sources and study selection

Articles were assessed by four trained investigators, with divergences resolved by consensus. BioMedCentral, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials were searched for pertinent studies. Inclusion criteria were random allocation to treatment and comparison of statins versus any comparator in septic patients.

Data extraction and synthesis

Data from 650 patients in 5 randomized controlled studies were analyzed. No difference in mortality between patients receiving statins versus control (44/322 [14%] in the statins group vs 50/328 [15%] in the control arm, RR = 0.90 [95% CI 0.65 to 1.26], p = 0.6) was observed. No differences in hospital stay (p = 0.7) were found.

Conclusions

Published data show that statin therapy has no effect on mortality in the overall population of adult septic patients. Scientific evidence on statins role in septic patients is still limited and larger randomized trials should be performed on this topic.     

Efficacy of Eye-Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing for Patients with Posttraumatic-Stress Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

We performed the first meta-analysis of clinical studies by investigating the effects of eye-movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy on the symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, and subjective distress in PTSD patients treated during the past 2 decades.

Methods

We performed a quantitative meta-analysis on the findings of 26 randomized controlled trials of EMDR therapy for PTSD published between 1991 and 2013, which were identified through the ISI Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature electronic databases, among which 22, 20, 16, and 11 of the studies assessed the effects of EMDR on the symptoms of PTSD, depression, anxiety, and subjective distress, respectively, as the primary clinical outcome.

Results

The meta-analysis revealed that the EMDR treatments significantly reduced the symptoms of PTSD (g = −0.662; 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.887 to −0.436), depression (g = −0.643; 95% CI: −0.864 to −0.422), anxiety (g = −0.640; 95% CI: −0.890 to −0.390), and subjective distress (g = −0.956; 95% CI: −1.388 to −0.525) in PTSD patients.

Conclusion

This study confirmed that EMDR therapy significantly reduces the symptoms of PTSD, depression, anxiety, and subjective distress in PTSD patients. The subgroup analysis indicated that a treatment duration of more than 60 min per session was a major contributing factor in the amelioration of anxiety and depression, and that a therapist with experience in conducting PTSD group therapy was a major contributing factor in the reduction of PTSD symptoms.     

Results of Vertebral Augmentation Treatment for Patients of Painful Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Meta-Analysis of Eight Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

In 2009 two RCTs were publicated to question the efficacy of vertebroplasty comparing with sham treatment (ST) in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), which provoked an academic debate on the efficacy of PVA. The purposes of our study were to compare clinical differences in pain relief, spinal functional outcomes, and overall quality of life between PVA and CT for painful osteoporotic VCFs.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Knowledge from January 1980 to June 2013 with Medical Subject Headings terms and keywords. Risk of bias in the included studies was assessed in accordance with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. In this Meta-analysis dichotomous and continuous variables were calculated using the risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD), respectively.

Results

Eight studies involving 987 patients met the criteria for inclusion. The VAS SMD was favoring the experimental group significantly (p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis suggested that the patients performed PVA with mean fracture age less than 3 months would got pain relief earlier and more durable than the control group (P <0.05). The SMD of spinal function assessed with RDQ and Oswestry LBP data was in favor of the experimental groups. QOL outcome improvement was demonstrated statistically significant at early, middle and late-term follow-up for PVA than the control group (P <0.05).

Conclusions

In conclusion, this meta-analysis, which evaluated PVA for osteoporotic VCFs, demonstrated significant improvement regarding VAS, spinal function and QOL outcomes. The optimal fracture age was less than 12 weeks.