Background: In January 2020, the first case of Guillain Barre syndrome (GBS) due to COVID-19 was documented in China. GBS is known to be postinfectious following several types of infections. Although causality can only be proven through large epidemiological studies, we intended to study this association by a thorough review of the literature.Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Google scholar and included all papers with English or Spanish full text and original data of patients with GBS and recent COVID infection. Variables of interest were demographics, diagnostic investigations, and the latency between arboviral and neurological symptoms. Further variables were pooled to identify GBS clinical and electrophysiological variants, used treatments, and outcomes. The certainty of GBS diagnosis was verified using Brighton criteria.Results: We identified a total of 109 GBS cases. Ninety-nine cases had confirmed COVID-19 infection with an average age of 56.07 years. The average latency period between the arboviral symptoms and neurologic manifestations for confirmed COVID-19 cases was 12.2 d. The predominant GBS clinical and electromyography variants were the classical sensorimotor GBS and acute demyelinating polyneuropathy respectively. Forty cases required intensive care, 33 cases required mechanical ventilation, and 6 cases were complicated by death.Conclusions: Studies on COVID-19-related GBS commonly reported sensorimotor demyelinating GBS with frequent facial palsy. The time between the onset of infectious and neurological symptoms suggests a postinfectious mechanism. Early diagnosis of GBS in COVID-19 patients is important as it might be associated with a severe disease course requiring intensive care and mechanical ventilation.

Background: In patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke, a few studies have compared transradial access (TRA) to transfemoral access (TFA) with inconsistent results. We conducted this systematic review and meta‐analysis to provide comprehensive evidence regarding the comparison of procedural and clinical outcomes of TRA versus TFA in patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing mechanical thrombectomy. Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search of 4 electronic databases from inception until May 1, 2022. After title and full text screening, relevant data were extracted and then analyzed. For outcomes that constituted continuous data, the mean difference between the 2 groups and its SD were pooled. For outcomes that constituted dichotomous data, the frequency of events and the total number of patients in each group were pooled as odds ratio (OR) between the 2 groups. Results: Nine observational studies were included in this meta‐analysis. The population of the studies was homogenous comprising a total of 2161 patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy, including 446 patients via TRA and 1715 patients via TFA. There were no significant differences across the 2 groups in terms of successful recanalization (OR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.55–1.25]; P =0.36), complete recanalization (OR 1.16 [95% CI, 0.50–2.68]; P =0.73), favorable functional outcomes (OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.53–1.41]; P =0.56), first‐pass reperfusion (OR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.64–1.19]; P =0.41), number of passes (mean difference, 0.12 [95% CI, −0.18 to 0.42]; P =0.43), access‐to‐reperfusion time (mean difference, −3.92 minutes [95% CI, −9.49 to 1.65]; P =0.17), or symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.47–1.57]; P =0.62). However, access site complications were significantly less frequent in the TRA group as compared with the TFA group (OR, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.06–0.51; P =0.001). Conclusion: In patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke, the collective evidence suggests that TRA seems to result in lower rates of access site complications than TFA without significant compromise in other clinical or procedural metrics. Randomized or prospective studies are warranted to confirm these results.

Background and Purpose Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is a leading cause of disability worldwide. While intravenous thrombolysis is recommended within 4.5 hours of last known well (LKW) time, many patients present beyond this window.Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating tenecteplase (TNK) administration in AIS patients within 4.5 to 24 hours of LKW. The primary outcomes assessed functional independence and ordinal modified Rankin Scale (mRS) shift at 90 days. Safety outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and mortality at 90 days.Results Three RCTs were included, comprising 1,054 patients (532 TNK and 522 standard medical therapy) with a mean age of 69 years, 59% males, and median baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 10.5. TNK treatment was associated with mRS 0–2 at 90 days (odds ratio [OR]: 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04–1.70, P=0.023), indicating a 33% higher likelihood of achieving functional independence. However, the ordinal mRS shift showed no significant difference (standardized mean difference: 0.01, 95% CI: -0.37–0.39, P=0.09). Safety outcomes indicated no difference in the rates of sICH (OR: 2.07, 95% CI: 0.86–5.00, P=0.1), and no difference in 90-day mortality (OR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.76–1.53, P=0.67).Conclusion This meta-analysis suggests TNK might be safe and effective for selected AIS patients in the 4.5- to 24-hour time window, offering improved functional outcomes without a significant increase in hemorrhagic complications.

As COVID-19 vaccines became widely available, there have been reports of neurovascular complications. In this article, we aim to report a case of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) induced by COVID-19 vaccination, with a literature review on similar cases as well as the potential pathophysiological mechanisms. Our case is a healthy male who developed headache, vomiting, photophobia and diplopia after receiving the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine. Fundus examination showed papilledema, and magnetic resonance imaging of the brain and cerebral veins showed CVST involving the superior sagittal sinus and right transverse sinus extending into the right jugular vein. Hypercoagulability workup was unremarkable, and the patient received immunotherapy and anticoagulation. Following this treatment, symptoms resolved, and he had no residual neurologic deficits. Developing neurologic manifestations, especially severe headaches with papilledema, after COVID-19 vaccination should warrant neuroimaging. Early recognition and management of CVST are essential for good clinical outcomes.