Objective. To assess the magnitude of risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular morbidity in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) compared with the general population through a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Methods. We searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases, as well as abstracts archives from rheumatology conferences. Observational studies that included a PsA diagnosis, cardiovascular or cerebrovascular outcomes, and a comparison group of individuals without psoriasis and rheumatic diseases and were case-control, crosssectional, or cohort studies, were assessed by 2 researchers. We calculated weighted pooled summary estimates of the maximally adjusted effect size estimates for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases using the random-effects model, and tested for heterogeneity using the I 2 statistic. Results. Eleven studies, comprising 32,973 patients with PsA, met the inclusion criteria. There was a 43% increased risk of cardiovascular diseases in patients with PsA compared with the general population (pooled odds ratio [OR] 1.43 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.24-1.66]). The risk of incident cardiovascular events was increased by 55% (pooled OR 1.22-1.96). Morbidity risks for myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular diseases, and heart failure were increased by 68%, 22%, and 31%, respectively (pooled OR 1.68 [95% CI 1.31-2.15], pooled OR 1.22 [95% CI 1.05-1.41], and pooled OR 1.31 [95% CI 1.11-1.55], respectively). We identified significant heterogeneity in all main analyses (P < 0.001). Conclusion. Cardiovascular and cerebrovascular morbidity are increased by 43% and 22%, respectively, in patients with PsA compared with the general population.
Objective
Invasive monitoring is sometimes necessary to guide resective surgery in epilepsy patients, but the ideal method is unknown. In this systematic review, we assess the association of postresection seizure freedom and adverse events in stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) and subdural electrodes (SDE).
Methods
We searched three electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL [Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials]) from their inception to January 2018 with the keywords “electroencephalography,” “intracranial grid,” and “epilepsy.” Studies that presented primary quantitative patient data for postresection seizure freedom with at least 1 year of follow‐up or complication rates of SEEG‐ or SDE‐monitored patients were included. Two trained investigators independently collected data from eligible studies. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence interval (CIs) were used as a measure of the association of SEEG or SDE with seizure freedom and with adverse event outcomes.
Results
Of 11 462 screened records, 48 studies met inclusion criteria. These studies reported on 1973 SEEG patients and 2036 SDE patients. Our systematic review revealed SEEG was associated with 61.0% and SDE was associated with 56.4% seizure freedom after resection (WMD = +5.8%, 95% CI = 4.7‐6.9%, P = .001). Furthermore, SEEG was associated with 4.8% and SDE was associated with 15.5% morbidity (WMD = −10.6%, 95% CI = −11.6 to −9.6%, P = .001). SEEG was associated with 0.2% mortality and SDE was associated with 0.4% mortality (WMD = −0.2%, 95% CI = −0.3 to −0.1%, P = .001).
Significance
In this systematic review of SEEG and SDE invasive monitoring techniques, SEEG was associated with fewer surgical resections yet better seizure freedom outcomes in those undergoing resections. SEEG was also associated with lower mortality and morbidity than SDE. Clinical studies directly comparing these modalities are necessary to understand the relative rates of seizure freedom, morbidity, and mortality associated with these techniques.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.