Dataset Information

Endovascular Thrombolysis in Hypothenar Hammer Syndrome: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: Objectives: Hypothenar hammer syndrome (HHS) is a rare vascular disease caused by blunt trauma of the hypothenar region. The optimal therapeutic strategy remains debatably since no large comparative studies are available yet. We want to evaluate the effectiveness of intra-arterial thrombolysis on angiographic and clinical outcome parameters in patients with HHS by performing a systematic review of the existing literature. Methods: A literature search of PUBMED/MEDLINE and SCIENCE DIRECT databases was performed up to May 2021. Results: In total, 16 manuscripts with 43 patients were included in the systematic review. Intra-arterial thrombolysis led to angiographic improvement in 29 patients (67.4%) and to clinical improvement in 34 patients (79.1%). Deterioration of arterial perfusion or clinical symptoms after thrombolysis were absent. Post-interventional complications were reported in only one patient (2.3%) without any bleeding complication. Logistic regression analyses demonstrated that a combined administration of fibrinolytics and heparin was associated with a significantly improved arterial patency [OR 12.57 (95% CI 2.48-97.8), p = 0.005] without significant amelioration of clinical symptoms [OR 3.20 (95% CI 0.6-18.9), p = 0.172]. The use of rt-PA compared to other fibrinolytics and a prolonged thrombolysis duration of more than 24 h did not show statistically significant effects. Intra-arterial thrombolysis was significantly less effective in patients who had undergone thrombolysis with a delay of more than 30 days regarding clinical improvement [OR 0.07 (95% CI 0.00-0.54), p = 0.024]. Conclusions: Intra-arterial thrombolysis with a combination of fibrinolytics and heparin is an effective and safe therapeutic option in patients with acute HHS.

SUBMITTER: Jud P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8714786 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe impact of COVID-19 on clinical outcomes in acute ischemic stroke patients receiving reperfusion therapy remains unclear. We therefore aimed to synthesize the available evidence to investigate the safety and short-term efficacy of reperfusion therapy in this patient population.MethodsWe searched the electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library Reviews for randomized controlled trials and observational studies that investigated the use of intravenous thrombolysis, endovascular therapy, or a combination of both in acute ischemic stroke patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, compared to controls. Our primary safety outcomes included any intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), symptomatic ICH and all-cause in-hospital mortality. Short-term favorable functional outcomes were assessed at discharge and at 3 months. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. Heterogeneity was evaluated using Cochran's Q test and I2 statistics.ResultsWe included 11 studies with a total of 477 COVID-19 positive and 8,092 COVID-19 negative ischemic stroke patients who underwent reperfusion therapy. COVID-19 positive patients exhibited a significantly higher risk of experiencing any ICH (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.16-2.05, p < 0.001), while the nominally increased risk of symptomatic ICH in these patients did not reach statistical significance (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.97-4.31; p = 0.06). COVID-19 positive stroke patients also had a significantly higher in-hospital mortality compared to COVID-19 negative stroke patients (RR 2.78, 95% CI 2.15-3.59, p < 0.001). Moreover, COVID-19 positive stroke patients were less likely to achieve a favorable functional outcome at discharge (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51-0.86, p < 0.001) compared to COVID-19 negative patients, but this difference was not observed at 3-month follow-up (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.14-2.91, p = 0.56).ConclusionCOVID-19 appears to have an adverse impact on acute ischemic stroke patients who undergo reperfusion therapy, leading to an elevated risk of any ICH, higher mortality and lower likelihood of favorable functional outcome.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO, identifier CRD42022309785.

Project description:Background: Whether bridging treatment combining intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is superior to direct EVT alone for emergent large vessel occlusion (LVO) in the anterior circulation is unknown. A systematic review and a meta-analysis were performed to investigate and assess the effect and safety of bridging treatment vs. direct EVT in patients with LVO in the anterior circulation. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library were searched to assess the effect and safety of bridging treatment and direct EVT in LVO. Functional independence, mortality, asymptomatic and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (aICH and sICH, respectively), and successful recanalization were evaluated. The risk ratio and the 95% CI were analyzed. Results: Among the eight studies included, there was no significant difference in the long-term functional independence (OR = 1.008, 95% CI = 0.845-1.204, P = 0.926), mortality (OR = 1.060, 95% CI = 0.840-1.336, P = 0.624), recanalization rate (OR = 1.015, 95% CI = 0.793-1.300, P = 0.905), and the incidence of sICH (OR = 1.320, 95% CI = 0.931-1.870, P = 0.119) between bridging therapy and direct EVT. After adjusting for confounding factors, bridging therapy showed a lower recanalization rate (effect size or ES = -0.377, 95% CI = -0.684 to -0.070, P = 0.016), but there was no significant difference in the long-term functional independence (ES = 0.057, 95% CI = -0.177 to 0.291, P = 0.634), mortality (ES = 0.693, 95% CI = -0.133 to 1.519, P = 0.100), and incidence of sICH (ES = -0.051, 95% CI = -0.687 to 0.585, P = 0.875) compared with direct EVT. Meanwhile, in the subgroup analysis of RCT, no significant difference was found in the long-term functional independence (OR = 0.927, 95% CI = 0.727-1.182, P = 0.539), recanalization rate (OR = 1.331, 95% CI = 0.948-1.867, P = 0.099), mortality (OR = 1.072, 95% CI = 0.776-1.481, P = 0.673), and sICH incidence (OR = 1.383, 95% CI = 0.806-2.374, P = 0.977) between patients receiving bridging therapy and those receiving direct DVT. Conclusion: For stroke patients with acute anterior circulation occlusion and who are eligible for intravenous thrombolysis, there is no significant difference in the clinical effect between direct EVT and bridging therapy, which needs to be verified by more randomized controlled trials.

Project description:BackgroundThe role of immediate transfer for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after thrombolysis for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction remains controversial. We performed a systematic review of the related literature to determine whether thrombolysis followed by transfer for immediate or early PCI is safe, feasible and superior to conservative management.MethodsA systematic literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the American Heart Association EndNote 7 Master Library databases, was performed to 2004 for relevant published studies. The level of evidence and the quality of the study design and methods were rated by 2 reviewers according to a standardized classification. A quantitative meta-analysis was performed to assess the effect at 6-12 months on mortality of immediate or early PCI after thrombolysis.ResultsWe found 13 articles that were supportive of immediate or early PCI after thrombolysis and 16 that were neutral or provided evidence opposing it. The largest randomized trials and meta-analyses showed no benefit of routine PCI immediately or shortly after thrombolysis. The studies that were supportive were generally more recent and more frequently involved coronary stents. One large trial supported early PCI after thrombolysis for patients with myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Overall, the difference in mortality rates between the invasive strategy and conservative care was nonsignificant. The 3 stent-era trials showed a significantly lower mortality among patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy (5.8% v. 10.0%, odds ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.32-0.92). Analysis of variance found a significant difference in treatment effect between stent-era and pre-stent-era trials.InterpretationAt present, there is inadequate evidence to recommend routine transfer of patients for immediate or early PCI after successful thrombolysis. Results of recent trials using contemporary PCI techniques, including coronary stents, appear more favourable but need to be confirmed in large randomized trials, which are currently in progress. Transfer for immediate PCI is recommended for patients with cardiogenic shock, hemodynamic instability or persistent ischemic symptoms after thrombolysis.

Dataset Information

Endovascular Thrombolysis in Hypothenar Hammer Syndrome: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets