Search

Abstract Background Program websites are essential resources in the process of residency and fellowship application. We evaluated the information furnished on these resources by Epilepsy fellowship programs. The extent of information provided was compared across geographic zones, academic affiliation, and national ranking. Methods A list of Epilepsy fellowship programs was derived from the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA). Links to program websites were obtained directly from FREIDA or using Google’s search engine. Online data was categorized to reflect program information, education, recruitment, compensation, epilepsy center-specific information, and social media presence. Data points under each category were collected to develop a standardized scoring system. The frequency of criterion present was compared across geographic zones, academic affiliation, and national ranking using parametric and non-parametric statistical tests. Significance was determined at a p-value ≤ 0.05 for all cases. The study utilized IBM SPSS version 28 and Python 3.11.3. Results We analyzed 80 Epilepsy fellowship programs. The most reported feature was the program director’s name and email (100.0%). The least reported features included board pass rates (1.3%), preparatory boot camp (8.8%), and post-fellowship placements (11.3%). Programs were found to be well-represented on X (88.8%), Facebook (81.3%), and Instagram (71.3%). Most (85.0%) of the programs were searchable through Google. The scores for program information, education, recruitment, compensation, epilepsy center-specific information, and social media visibility did not significantly vary based on location, academic affiliation, or rank status. Conclusions Our results demonstrate that despite an online presence, there is much room for improvement in the content available to the applicant. To improve the Match process and attract a roster of well-informed fellows, Epilepsy fellowship programs should furnish program websites with up-to-date information relevant to program information, education, recruitment, compensation, and epilepsy center-specific information.

Introduction Acute subdural hematomas are major causes of morbidity which warrant immediate treatment. If surgical intervention is warranted, craniotomy (CO) and decompressive craniectomy (DC) are employed, largely based on a loosely defined criteria and the neurosurgeon’s best judgment. The primacy of one approach over another is a matter of dispute. Objective We attempt to further clarify any advantages in the two techniques, and include a propensity score matched (PSM) subgroup analysis to eliminate bias. Design This meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Data Sources and Methods A literature review was conducted on PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar from inception to September 2023. 15 studies were extracted, and three outcomes were meta-analyzed: Mortality, Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) scores and patients undergoing re-operations/revisions. Odds Ratios (OR) and Mean Difference (MD) were used in dichotomous and continuous variables respectively. PSM data was used wherever possible. A subgroup analysis was conducted with 5 PSM studies and a trial. Heterogeneity was addressed if above 40% and the P -value is significant (≤ .05). Results A total of 15 studies were meta-analyzed with a total of 2327 and 2171 patients undergoing CO and DC respectively. Patients undergoing DC had a significantly worse GOS 5 outcome (OR: .63 [95% CI: .45-.87]; P = .005; I2 = 0%) and higher mortality (OR: 1.58 [95% CI: 1.20-2.08]; P = .001; I2 = 67%). In subgroup analysis of adjusted studies, DC still had significantly higher mortality. (OR: 1.50 [95% CI: 1.03-2.18]; P = .001; I2 = 83%). Conclusions This meta-analysis determines that CO is more viable than DC as a surgical option due to its less invasive nature. DC can be employed, albeit under strict preprocedural patient selection and for highly specific indications.

Levetiracetam (LEV) is not frequently recommended as a preventative medication for seizures after intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). Although there are differing opinions among clinicians, current recommendations do not support its use. We aim to assess the effectiveness of LEV in seizure prophylaxis in patients with ICH. We systematically searched PUBMED, SCOPUS, and other databases. Clinical trials and observational studies that enrolled patients in Spontaneous ICH and provided independent data on LEV were included. The pooled proportions of reported findings were determined using the random-effects model and forest plots were created. We identified six studies with a total of 1,166 patients for the analyses of primary and secondary outcomes. There were no significant differences in the total frequency of seizures between LEV treatment and placebo (OR=0.52; 95% CI-0.21–1.31; P=0.17) and also LEV treatment did not lower the death rate. (OR=1.14, 95% CI-0.57–2.26, P- 0.71). In half of the investigations (n=3), the poor clinical outcomes were defined using the mRS (i.e. score >3). The results showed that taking the placebo resulted in worse outcomes (OR-6.24, 95% CI-3.97-9.81, P.00001). Overall, there were no appreciable differences between LEV and placebo regarding the change in NIHSS of less than 25 (MID, 1.98; 95%CI, 0.15–4.12; P=0.07). However, these two trials showed a significant amount of heterogeneity (I2=83%). LEV did not significantly reduce mortality and seizure occurrences on average than those on other anti-epileptic medications. Our study is the first to analyze the efficacy of this newer-generation anti-epileptic drug for seizure prophylaxis in patients with ICH.

Background and purpose We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients undergoing CT angiography (CTA) and CT perfusion (CTP) for acute ischaemic stroke (AIS). Concerns over contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) often lead medical centres to mandate pre-imaging serum creatinine level assessments, causing unnecessary delays. We aim to confirm further the practice of conducting CTA/CTP without first testing creatinine.Methods We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central and Scopus from inception until March 2023 for studies reporting on AKI in patients with AIS receiving CTA/CTP. Outcomes of interest were (1) the odds of AKI in patients receiving CTA/CTP versus non-contrast CT and (2) the overall incidence of AKI and haemodialysis in patients with AIS undergoing CTA/CTP.Results Results were pooled using a random effects model. 13 studies were included (5 cohort and 8 single-arm studies) with 5104 patients in total, out of which 4347 patients received CTA/CTP and 757 patients received no contrast. In case–control studies, 4.8% (OR=0.66, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.22, Z=1.32, p=0.19) of patients who received CTA/CTP developed AKI, compared with 7.7% of patients in the control group. Temporary haemodialysis was required for two patients in the analysed studies.Conclusions Non-randomised evidence suggests that CTA/CTP is not associated with a statistically significant increase in the risk of AKI in patients with stroke. Further well-designed prospective studies are required to explore potential risk factors of CIN in specific patient populations such as diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease.

Donors after brain death (DBD) have been the major source of organ donation due to good perfusion of the organs. However, owing to the mismatch in demand and supply of the organ donors and recipients, donors after circulatory death (DCDDs) has increased recently all over the world. Kidneys, liver, and lungs are being used for transplantation from DCDDs. Recently, heart transplantation from DCDDs has been started, which is under the firestorm of scrutiny by the ethicists. The ethical dilemma revolves around the question whether the donors are actually dead when they are declared dead by cardiocirculatory death criteria for organ procurement. The subsequent literature review addresses all the perspectives by differentiating between the donation methods known as DBDs and DCDDs, explaining the implications of the dead-donor rule on the organ donation pool, and categorizing the determinants of death leading to separation of the arguments under the two methods of donations. Keywords: Heart transplantation, Organ procurement, Brain death, Dead-donor rule, Donor after circulatory death