Objective: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we investigated the efficacy and safety of middle meningeal artery embolization (MMAE) using particle embolic agents to treat cSDH. Methods: To retrieve articles investigating outcomes of patients following MMAE with particle agents and to compare their outcome with conventional treatment, Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched using relevant keywords. Original articles with more than 10 cases were included. The meta-analysis was carried out using the R studio and the random-effects model. Publication bias was assessed using Peter's test and quality assessment using NIH tools. Results: Eleven studies with 359 patients were included. The analysis revealed a pooled recurrence rate of 5% (CI: 3–8%), a need for reoperation rate of 5% (3–9%), and a peri-procedural complication rate of 4% (CI:2–9%) following MMAE with particle embolic agents. The pooled rates of decrease in size or resolution of the hematoma were 85% (CI:66–94%) and 66% (39–86%), respectively. Comparing MMAE using particulate embolysate with conventional treatments, risk ratio (RR) of 0.10 (CI:0.04–0.27) was achieved for recurrence, 0.25(CI:0.13–0.49) for reoperation, and 0.34 (CI:0.16–0.27) for peri-procedural complications. 91% of cSDH cases responded to MMAE with particles in the way they showed either down-sizing or complete resolution of the hematoma on follow-up imaging. In comparison, this rate was found to be 63% following conventional treatment. Conclusion: Middle meningeal artery embolization using particle embolysates is a safe and effective technique for the treatment of cSDH, whether as a standalone intervention or in combination with conventional treatments.

Freezing of gait (FOG) is a disabling gait disorder in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD), characterized by recurrent episodes of halting steps. Dopaminergic drugs are common treatments for PD ...

Aims: The aetiology of peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM) is still not clear, and it is unknown who would recover from PPCM. In this meta-analysis, for the first time, we aimed to explore the prognostic value of potential baseline factors that may help predict recovery in patients with PPCM. Methods: A systematic approach following the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guideline was taken by using appropriate keywords in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases. Studies that had compared different clinical and paraclinical markers at the time of diagnosis related to cardiovascular function between recovered and non-recovered patients with PPCM were included. To find potential predictors of recovery, the odds ratio (OR) was calculated for different parameters using the random-effects model. Results: Eighteen cohort studies including 1047 patients with PPCM were enrolled. Six markers out of the 11 potentially eligible markers were associated with PPCM recovery. Baseline echocardiographic parameters [left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (OR = 4.84 [2.53; 9.26]), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (OR = 3.67 [2.58; 5.23]), left ventricular end-systolic diameter (OR = 3.99 [2.27; 7.02]), and fractional shortening (OR = 6.14 [1.81; 20.85])] were strong predictors of PPCM recovery. Systolic blood pressure (OR = 2.16 [1.38; 3.38]) and diastolic blood pressure (OR = 2.06 [1.07; 3.96]) at diagnosis were also associated with recovery. Conclusions: Patients with PPCM who have a higher baseline LVEF, lower left ventricular diameters, and higher blood pressure levels have a greater chance to recover from PPCM.

Background and Aim: Due to the high social and economic burden and also mortality and morbidity caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) in the past few years, researchers have aimed at finding solutions to suppressing the severity of infection. Recently, selective serotonin and serotonin‐norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SSRI/SNRI) have been investigated as an adjuvant treatment for COVID‐19. The aim of the current study was to investigate the impact of SSRI/SNRIs on outcomes of COVID‐19 patients.Methods: In this systematic review and meta‐analysis, a comprehensive search strategy consisting of relevant words was performed by two researchers in PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE libraries. Studies reporting the effect of SSRI and/or SNRI use in COVID‐19 patients' outcome were included. Hospitalization, mortality, hospitalization event, and length of hospital stay were considered as main outcomes of this study. Analysis was carried out using Comprehensive Meta‐Analysis (CMA‐version 2) and final data were reported as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).Results: Our search led to the final selection of 9 articles including 15,287 patients. The effect of fluvoxamine, fluoxetine, and the overall effect of SSRI/SNRI use on mortality of COVID‐19 patients were investigated in 3, 2, and 7 articles, respectively. The results of our analyses showed that these medications could significantly decrease mortality of COVID‐19 patients (OR and 95% [CI]: 0.595 [0.467–0.758], 0.620 [0.469–0.821], and 0.596 [0.437–0.813]). The effect of SSRI/SNRIs on hospitalization events of COVID‐19 patients was not significant (OR: 0.240% and 95% CI: 0.041–1.4). Also, length of hospital stay was longer in patients who administrated SSRIs.Conclusion: According to this study's results, SSRI/SNRIs may be effective in reducing mortality of COVID‐19 patients, suggesting the superiority of fluvoxamine to fluoxetine. The safety profile and affordable cost of SSRI/SNRIs for a short‐term use may be other reasons to propose them as beneficial medications in preventing mortality in COVID‐19.

Thromboembolic events such as acute ischemic strokes are frequently seen in patients with infective endocarditis (IE). It is generally recommended that the administration of intravenous thrombolytics is avoided in these patients as they might encounter a higher risk of intracranial hemorrhages. In this setting, particularly with a large vessel occlusion (LVO), a mechanical thrombectomy may be an alternative option. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to investigate the outcomes and safety of mechanical thrombectomies for LVO stroke patients secondary to IE. A search strategy was developed and we searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, and Embase using the words “infective endocarditis”, “stroke”, and “mechanical thrombectomy”. Including 6 studies and 120 patients overall, this study showed that a mechanical thrombectomy might reduce the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), with a weighted mean difference of −3.06 and a 95% CI of −4.43 to −1.70. The pooled rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhages and all-cause mortality were also determined to be 15% (95% CI: 4–47%) and 34% (95% CI:14–61%), respectively. The results of this study showed that a mechanical thrombectomy might be an effective and reasonably safe option for the treatment of LVO strokes caused by IE. However, more large-scale studies are needed to consolidate these results.