High-intensity statins are recommended for patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). Critical limb ischemia (CLI) is the most advanced presentation of PAD. The benefit of statins in the CLI population is unclear based on the existent studies. Our objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the efficacy of statin therapy in patients with CLI. PRISMA guidelines were followed. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were reviewed up to April 30, 2019. The primary outcomes included amputation rates and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included primary patency rates, amputation-free survival and major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Risk of bias was assessed with the Robins-I tool for observational studies. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed. Heterogeneity was assessed with I². Funnel plots and Egger’s test were used to assess publication bias. Nineteen studies including 26,985 patients with CLI were included in this systematic review. Among patients with known data on statin status, 12,292 (49.6%) were on statins versus 12,513 (50.4%) not on statins. Patients treated with statins were 25% less likely to undergo amputation (HR 0.75; 95% CI: 0.59–0.95; I² = 79%) and 38% less likely to have a fatal event (HR 0.62; 95% CI: 0.52–0.75; I² = 41.2%). Statin therapy was also associated with increased overall patency rates and lower incidence of MACCE. There was substantial heterogeneity in the analysis for amputation and amputation-free survival (I² > 70%). In conclusion, statins are associated with decreased risk for amputation, mortality, and MACCE, as well as increased overall patency rates among patients with CLI. Future studies should assess whether other lipid-lowering medications in addition to high-intensity statins can further improve outcomes among patients with CLI. (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019134160)

BACKGROUND: Recent randomized control trials (RCTs) established that mechanical thrombectomy is superior to medical therapy for patients with stroke due to a large vessel occlusion. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy profile of the different mechanical thrombectomy strategies. METHODS: A random-effects meta-analysis was performed and the I² statistic was used to assess heterogeneity according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. RESULTS: Nineteen studies with a total of 2449 patients were included. No differences were identified between the stent retrieval and direct aspiration groups in terms of modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) 2b/3 and mTICI 3 recanalization rates, and favorable outcomes (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] ≤ 2). Adverse event rates, including 90-d mortality, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), and subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), were similar between the stent retrieval and direct aspiration groups. The use of the stent retrieval was associated with a higher risk of vasospasm (odds ratio [OR]: 2.98; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.10-8.09; I²: 0%) compared to direct aspiration. When compared with the direct aspiration group, the subgroup of patients who underwent thrombectomy with the combined approach as a first-line strategy had a higher likelihood of successful mTICI 2b/3 (OR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.02-2.12; I²: 0%) and mTICI 3 recanalization (OR: 3.65; 95% CI: 1.56-8.54), although with a higher risk of SAH (OR: 4.33; 95% CI: 1.15-16.32). CONCLUSION: Stent retrieval thrombectomy and direct aspiration did not show significant differences. Current available evidence is not sufficient to draw conclusions on the best surgical approach. The combined use of a stent retriever and aspiration as a first-line strategy was associated with higher mTICI 2b/3 and mTICI 3 recanalization rates, although with a higher risk of 24-h SAH, when compared with direct aspiration.

Background: The optimal treatment for advanced heart failure (HF) patients with regards to mortality remains unknown. Heart transplantation (HTx) and left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) used either as a bridge to transplant (BTT) or destination therapy (DT) have been compared in a number of studies, without definite conclusions with regards to mortality benefit. We sought to systematically review the pertinent literature and perform a meta-analysis of all the available studies presenting head-to-head comparisons between HTx and LVAD BTT or LVAD DT for late (>6 months) all-cause mortality. Methods: We performed a systematic search of Medline and Cochrane Central databases in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We conducted a meta-analysis of late mortality comparing HTx vs. BTT LVAD and HTx vs. DT LVAD using a random effects model. Results: Eight studies were included in our meta-analysis, reporting data on 7,957 patients in total. Although the available studies are of high quality [8 stars in Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) on average], there is paucity of mortality data. Specifically, seven studies compared HTx with BTT and five studies compared HTx with DT for 1-year mortality. Our pooled estimates showed that there was no difference in late mortality among these strategies. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis highlights the small number and the heterogeneity of available studies referring to the optimal invasive management of advanced HF, and shows that there are no differences between HTx and LVAD for these patients with regards to late mortality.