Parkinson’s disease (PD) is the most common movement disorder in the world, affecting 1–2 per 1,000 of the population. The main pathological changes of PD are damage of dopaminergic neurons in substantia nigra of the central nervous system and formation of Lewy bodies. These pathological changes also occur in the intestinal tract and are strongly associated with changes in intestinal flora. By reviewing the research progress in PD and its association with intestinal flora in recent years, this review expounded the mechanism of action between intestinal flora and PD as well as the transmission mode of α - synuclein in neurons. In clinical studies, β diversity of intestinal flora in PD patients was found to change significantly, with Lactobacillusaceae and Verrucomicrobiaceae being significantly increased and Lachnospiraceae and Prevotellaceae being significantly decreased. In addition, a longer PD course was associated with fewer bacteria and probiotics producing short chain fatty acids, but more pathogenic bacteria. Moreover, the motor symptoms of PD patients may be related to Enterobacteriaceae and bacteria. Most importantly, catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibitors and anticholinergic drugs could change the intestinal flora of PD patients and increase the harmful flora, whereas other anti-PD drugs such as levodopa, dopamine agonist, monoamine oxidase inhibitors, and amantadine did not have these effects. Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics treatment had some potential values in improving the constipation of PD patients, promoting the growth of probiotics, and improving the level of intestinal inflammation. At present, there were only a few case studies and small sample studies which have found certain clinical efficacy of fecal microbiome transplants. Further studies are necessary to elaborate the relationship of PD with microbes.

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.