Search

Objective: To measure the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on admissions to hospital and interventions for acute ischemic stroke and acute myocardial infarction., Design: A retrospective analysis., Setting: 746 qualifying hospitals in the USA from the Premier Healthcare Database., Participants: Patients aged 18 years and older who were admitted to hospital with a primary diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke or acute myocardial infarction between 1 March 2019 and 28 February 2021., Main Outcome Measures: Relative changes in volumes were assessed for acute ischemic stroke and acute myocardial infarction hospital admissions as well as intravenous thrombolysis, mechanical thrombectomy, and percutaneous coronary intervention (overall and for acute myocardial infarction only) across the first year of the pandemic versus the prior year. Mortality in hospital and length of stay in hospital were also compared across the first year of the pandemic versus the corresponding period the year prior. These metrics were explored across the different pandemic waves., Results: Among 746 qualifying hospitals, admissions to hospital were significantly reduced after the covid-19 pandemic compared with before the pandemic for acute ischemic stroke (-13.59% (95% confidence interval-13.77% to -13.41%) and acute myocardial infarction (-17.20% (-17.39% to -17.01%)), as well as intravenous thrombolysis (-9.47% (-9.99% to -9.02%)), any percutaneous coronary intervention (-17.89% (-18.06% to -17.71%)), and percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction (-14.36% (-14.59% to -14.12%)). During the first year of the pandemic versus the previous year, the odds of mortality in hospital for acute ischemic stroke were 9.00% higher (3.51% v 3.16%; ratio of the means 1.09 (95% confidence interval (1.03 to 1.15); P=0.0013) and for acute myocardial infarction were 18.00% higher (4.81% v 4.29%; ratio of the means 1.18 (1.13 to 1.23); P<0.0001)., Conclusions: We observed substantial decreases in admissions to hospital with acute ischemic stroke and acute myocardial infarction, but an increase in mortality in hospital throughout the first year of the pandemic. Public health interventions are needed to prevent these reductions in future pandemics., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: no support from any organization for the submitted work; RGN reports consulting fees for advisory roles with Anaconda, Biogen, Cerenovus, Genentech, Hybernia, Imperative Care, Medtronic, Phenox, Philips, Prolong Pharmaceuticals, Stryker Neurovascular, Shanghai Wallaby, Synchron, and stock options for advisory roles with Astrocyte, Brainomix, Cerebrotech, Ceretrieve, Corindus Vascular Robotics, Vesalio, Viz-AI, RapidPulse and Perfuze. RGN is one of the Principal Investigators of the “Endovascular Therapy for Low NIHSS Ischemic Strokes (ENDOLOW) trial. Funding for this project is provided by Cerenovus. RGN is an investor in Viz-AI, Perfuze, Cerebrotech, Reist/Q’Apel Medical, Truvic, and Viseon. TNN reports research support from Medtronic, Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology (SVIN) and Data Safety Monitoring Board participation on the TESLA, ENDOLOW, SELECT-2, PROST, CREST-2, and WE-TRUST trials. KE, SI, CW, and RK are employees of Johnson & Johnson and provided analytical support for this manuscript. DCH reports consulting fees from Stryker, Cerenovus and Vesalio and stock options in VizAI. CMD reports consulting fees from Medtronic, ReCor Medical, Vascular Dynamics and Proctor fees from Edwards Lifesciences. ARAB reports consulting fees from Stryker., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Aim: Stent-retriever (SR) thrombectomy has demonstrated superior outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke compared with medical management alone, but differences among SRs remain unexplored. We conducted a Systematic Review/Meta-Analysis to compare outcomes between three SRs: EmboTrap ® , Solitaire™, and Trevo ® . Methods: We conducted a PRISMA-compliant Systematic Review among English-language studies published after 2014 in PubMed/MEDLINE that reported SRs in ≥25 patients. Functional and safety outcomes included 90-day modified Rankin scale (mRS 0-2), mortality, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), and embolization to new territory (ENT). Recanalization outcomes included modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (mTICI) and first-pass recanalization (FPR). We used a random effects Meta-Analysis to compare outcomes; subgroup and outlier-influencer analysis were performed to explore heterogeneity. Results: Fifty-one articles comprising 9,804 patients were included. EmboTrap had statistically significantly higher rates of mRS 0-2 (57.4%) compared with Trevo (50.0%, p = 0.013) and Solitaire (45.3%, p < 0.001). Compared with Solitaire (20.4%), EmboTrap (11.2%, p < 0.001) and Trevo (14.5%, p = 0.018) had statistically significantly lower mortality. Compared with Solitaire (7.7%), EmboTrap (3.9%, p = 0.028) and Trevo (4.6%, p = 0.049) had statistically significantly lower rates of sICH. There were no significant differences in ENT rates across all three devices (6.0% for EmboTrap, 5.3% for Trevo, and 7.7% for Solitaire, p = 0.518). EmboTrap had numerically higher rates of recanalization; however, no statistically significant differences were found. Conclusion: The results of our Systematic Review/Meta-Analysis suggest that EmboTrap may be associated with significantly improved functional outcomes compared with Solitaire and Trevo. EmboTrap and Trevo may be associated with significantly lower rates of sICH and mortality compared with Solitaire. No significant differences in recanalization and ENT rates were found. These conclusions are tempered by limitations of the analysis including variations in thrombectomy techniques in the field, highlighting the need for multi-arm RCT studies comparing different SR devices to confirm our findings.

Background: Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) has become the standard of care for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS). The EmboTrap revascularization device (CERENOVUS, Johnson & Johnson Medical Devices, Irvine, California, USA) has an innovative, dual layer feature designed to facilitate thrombus retrieval., Objective: To investigate the real-world clinical and economic outcomes among patients with AIS undergoing MT using the EmboTrap device in the United States (US)., Methods: Adult patients (≥18 years) who underwent MT for AIS using the EmboTrap device between July 2018 and December 2020 were identified from the Premier Healthcare Database. Patient outcomes included discharge status (including in-hospital mortality), mean length of stay (LOS), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), mean hospital costs, and 30-day readmissions (all-cause, cardiovascular (CV)-related, and AIS-related)., Results: A total of 318 patients (mean age 68.5±14.6 years) with AIS treated with the EmboTrap device as the only stent retriever used were identified. Approximately 25% of patients were discharged to home/home health organization, and the in-hospital mortality rate was 10.7%. The rate of ICH was 16.7%. Mean hospital LOS was 9.9±11.3 days, and the mean hospital costs were US$47 367±30 297. The 30-day readmission rate was 9.6% for all-causes, 5.9% for CV-related causes, and 2.6% for AIS-related causes., Conclusions: This is the first study in the US to report real-world outcomes sourced by retrospective database analysis among patients with AIS undergoing MT using the EmboTrap device. Further research is needed to better understand performance of the EmboTrap device in real-world settings., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SI, EK, AK, and RK are Johnson and Johnson employees. SM is an employee of MuSigma Inc, which has a consulting agreement with Johnson and Johnson. WB consults for Johnson and Johnson, Medtronic, Stryker, Microvention, and MIVI Neuroscience., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Stroke disproportionately affects racial minorities, and the level to which stroke treatment practices differ across races is understudied. Here, we performed a systematic review of disparities in stroke treatment between racial minorities and White patients. A systematic literature search was performed on PubMed to identify studies published from January 1, 2010, to April 5, 2021 that investigated disparities in access to stroke treatment between racial minorities and White patients. A total of 30 studies were included in the systematic review. White patients were estimated to use emergency medical services at a greater rate (59.8%) than African American (55.6%), Asian (54.7%), and Hispanic patients (53.2%). A greater proportion of White patients (37.4%) were estimated to arrive within 3 hours from onset of stroke symptoms than African American (26.0%) and Hispanic (28.9%) patients. A greater proportion of White patients (2.8%) were estimated to receive tPA (tissue-type plasminogen activator) as compared with African American (2.3%), Hispanic (2.6%), and Asian (2.3%) patients. Rates of utilization of mechanical thrombectomy were also lower in minorities than in the White population. As shown in this review, racial disparities exist at key points along the continuum of stroke care from onset of stroke symptoms to treatment. Beyond patient level factors, these disparities may be attributed to other provider and system level factors within the health care ecosystem.

Introduction: Intraoperative surgical sealants and hemostatic agents have been shown to reduce postoperative complications, transfusions, and hospital resource utilization. Despite availability of these agents, the incidence and burden of bleeding remains high and surgeons' requirements for hemostatic control continue to evolve. A burgeoning class of hemostatic agents are hemostatic patches, which offer package-to-patient readiness and direct application. In addition, hemostatic patches may provide tissue sealing capabilities. Areas covered: This review focuses on the clinical effectiveness, versatility, and surgical efficiency of HEMOPATCH as a surgical sealant and hemostatic agent in various surgical specialties including: cardiac, digestive (hepatic, gastrointestinal, pancreatic), urological, neurological, and endocrine. Expert commentary: Among hemostatic patches, HEMOPATCH is a valuable tool to stop bleeding without adverse events across various surgical specialties. Clinical evidence demonstrates the safety, clinical effectiveness, and versatility of HEMOPATCH as a unique surgical adjunct in patients undergoing complex and routine surgical procedures. Larger randomized-controlled clinical studies, or clinical registries, will continue to be used to evaluate its performance and versatility, particularly for sealing tissues and closing the dura. In the current field of surgical sealing and hemostasis, however, HEMOPATCH represents the next step in improving patient outcomes.

Background: A recent randomized controlled trial showed that patients undergoing ascending aorta surgery treated with HEMOPATCH to control bleeding had a significantly better hemostasis success rate than with dry or wet gauze compression or similar standard of care (SOC)., Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness using two different agents for hemostasis (HEMOPATCH vs dry or wet gauze compression or similar SOC) in cardiac surgery from the European hospital perspective., Methods: A literature-based cost-effectiveness model estimating average cost per successful hemostasis event was developed based on the hemostasis efficacy difference (HEMOPATCH = 97.6%, SOC = 65.8%, p < .001). Additional clinically significant end-points studied in the trial (blood transfusions and surgical revisions) were also analyzed. It was assumed that each surgery utilized two units of HEMOPATCH (dimensions of 4.5 × 9 cm) and two units of SOC. Product acquisition costs for HEMOPATCH and SOC were included along with outcome-related costs derived from the literature and inflation-adjusted to 2017 EUR and GBP. Results are presented for an average hospital with an annual case load of 574 cardiac surgeries. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed., Results: Considering only product acquisition cost, HEMOPATCH had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €1,659, €1,519, €1,623, and £1,725 per hemostasis success when compared to SOC for Italy, Spain, France, and the UK, respectively. However, when considering the cost and potential difference in the frequency of transfusions and revisions compared to SOC, the use of HEMOPATCH was associated with an annual reduction of six revisions and 60 transfusions, improving the ICER to €1,440, €1,222, €1,461, and £1,592, respectively. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated model robustness., Conclusions: This analysis supports the use of HEMOPATCH over SOC in cardiac surgery in European hospitals to improve hemostasis success rates and potential cost offsets from reduced transfusions, complications, and surgical revisions.

Objectives: A recently published retrospective analysis comparing two different active flowable hemostatic matrices (FLOSEAL and SURGIFLO Kit with Thrombin) showed significantly increased resource use and complications (surgery time, risk of blood product transfusion, and amount of matrix used) with SURGIFLO use compared to FLOSEAL in major spine surgery, and also significantly increased surgical time with SURGIFLO use in severe spine surgery. This analysis was developed as a follow-up to this prior analysis, to evaluate the cost-consequence of using FLOSEAL vs SURGIFLO in major and severe spine surgery., Methods: A cost consequence model was constructed from a US hospital provider perspective. Model parameters combined clinical inputs from the published retrospective analysis with supplemental analyses on annual spine surgery volume using the 2012 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. Cost of hemostatic matrices, blood product transfusion, and operating room time were identified from published literature. Various one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed., Results: The base case for a medium volume hospital showed that, compared to SURGIFLO, patients receiving FLOSEAL required three fewer blood product transfusions and saved 27 h of OR time, resulting in annual savings of $151 per major and $574 per severe spine surgery. Additional scenarios for high and low volume hospitals supported cost savings in the base case. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed FLOSEAL was cost-saving in 76% of simulations in major spine and 97% of iterations in severe spine surgery., Conclusions: This economic analysis indicates that use of FLOSEAL instead of SURGIFLO hemostatic matrices to induce hemostasis in both major and severe spine surgery could potentially lead to sizable cost savings in US hospitals, regardless of spinal surgery case-mix.