Search

Background and aim: The use of endoluminal flow diversion in bifurcation aneurysms has been questioned due to the potential for complications and lower occlusion rates. In this study we assessed outcomes of endovascular treatment of intracranial sidewall and bifurcation aneurysms with flow diverters Methods: In July 2020, a literature search for all studies utilizing endoluminal flow diverter treatment for sidewall or bifurcation aneurysms was performed. Data were collected from studies that met our inclusion/exclusion criteria by two independent reviewers and confirmed by a third reviewer. Using random-effects meta-analysis the target outcomes including overall complications (hematoma, ischemic events, minor ischemic stroke, aneurysm rupture, side vessel occlusion, stenosis, thrombosis, transient ischemic stroke, and other complications), perioperative complications, and follow-up (long-term) aneurysm occlusion were intestigated. Results: Overall, we included 35 studies with 1084 patients with 1208 aneurysms. Of these aneurysms, 654 (54.14%) and 554 (45.86%) were classified as sidewall and bifurcation aneurysm, respectively, based on aneurysm location. Sidewall aneurysms had a similar total complication rate (R) of 27.12% (95% CI, 16.56%–41.09%), compared with bifurcation aneurysms (R, 20.40%, 95% CI, 13.24%–30.08%) (p = 0.3527). Follow-up angiographic outcome showed comparable complete occlusion rates for sidewall aneurysms (R 69.49%; 95%CI, 62.41%–75.75%) and bifurcation aneurysms (R 73.99%; 95% CI, 65.05%–81.31%; p = 0.4328). Conclusions: This meta-analysis of sidewall and bifurcation aneurysms treated with endoluminal flow diverters demonstrated no significant differences in complications or occlusion rates. These data provide new information that can be used as a benchmark for comparison with emerging devices for the treatment of bifurcation aneurysms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To systematically review the clinical literature reporting the use of Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) for the treatment of patients with Cornonavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) to assess the efficacy of LPV/r for the treatment of COVID-19. Methods: The authors systematically searched PubMed and MedRxiv databases for studies describing treatment of COVID-19 patients using LPV/r compared to other therapies. Articles were excluded if they were case reports, opinion editorials, preclinical studies, single-armed studies, not written in English, not relevant to the topic, or published before May 2020. The included outcomes were viral clearance as measured by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negativity and/or improvement on chest computed tomography (CT), mortality, and adverse events. Results: Among 858 total studies, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative review. These studies consisted of 3 randomized control trials, 3 open-label trials, and 10 observational studies. Most of these studies did not report positive clinical outcomes with LPV/r treatment. Conclusion: The systematic review revealed insufficient evidence of effectiveness and clinical benefit of LPV/r in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Specifically, LPV/r does not appear to improve clinical outcome, mortality, time to RT-PCR negativity, or chest CT clearance in patients with COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]