Search

Objective: The characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing vascular surgery hospitalised and managed in Lombardy are described with a comparison of patients tested positive for COVID-19 (CV19-pos) vs. those tested negative (CV19-neg). Methods: This was a multicentre, retrospective, observational cohort study which involved all vascular surgery services in Lombardy, Northern Italy. Data were retrospectively merged into a combined dataset covering the nine weeks of the Italian COVID-19 pandemic phase 1 (8 March 2020 to 3 May 2020). The primary outcome was freedom from in hospital death, secondary outcomes were re-thrombosis rate after peripheral revascularisation, and freedom from post-operative complication. Results: Among 674 patients managed during the outbreak, 659 (97.8%) were included in the final analysis: 121 (18.4%) were CV19-pos. CV19-pos status was associated with a higher rate of complications (OR 4.5; p < .001, 95% CI 2.64 – 7.84), and a higher rate of re-thrombosis after peripheral arterial revascularisation (OR 2.2; p = .004, 95% CI 1.29 – 3.88). In hospital mortality was higher in CV19-pos patients (24.8% vs. 5.6%; OR 5.4, p < .001;95% CI 2.86 – 8.92). Binary logistic regression analysis identified CV19-pos status (OR 7.6; p < .001, 95% CI 3.75 – 15.28) and age > 80 years (OR 3.2; p = .001, 95% CI 1.61 – 6.57) to be predictors of in hospital death. Conclusion: In this experience of the vascular surgery group of Lombardy, COVID-19 infection was a marker of poor outcomes in terms of mortality and post-operative complications for patients undergoing vascular surgery treatments.

The recommendations of international guidelines for the management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) often vary considerably and extend from a conservative approach with risk factor modification and best medical treatment (BMT) alone, to a more aggressive approach with a carotid intervention plus BMT. The aim of the current multispecialty position statement was to reconcile the conflicting views on the topic. A literature review was performed with a focus on data from recent studies. Several clinical and imaging high-risk features have been identified that are associated with an increased long-term ipsilateral ischemic stroke risk in patients with ACS. Such high-risk clinical/imaging features include intraplaque hemorrhage, impaired cerebrovascular reserve, carotid plaque echolucency/ulceration/ neovascularization, a lipid-rich necrotic core, a thin or ruptured fibrous cap, silent brain infarction, a contralateral transient ischemic attack/stroke episode, male patients

The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) is the subject of extensive debate. According to the 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines, carotid endarterectomy should (Class IIa; Level of Evidence: B) or carotid artery stenting may be considered (Class IIb; Level of Evidence: B) in the presence of one or more clinical/imaging characteristics that may be associated with an increased risk of late ipsilateral stroke (e.g., silent embolic infarcts on brain computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging, progression in the severity of ACS, a history of contralateral transient ischemic attack/stroke, microemboli detection on transcranial Doppler, etc.), provided documented perioperative stroke/death rates are 5 years. Besides these clinical/imaging characteristics, there are additional individual, ethnic/racial or social factors that should probably be evaluated in the decision process regarding the optimal management of these patients, such as individual patient needs/patient choice, patient compliance with best medical treatment, patient sex, culture, race/ethnicity, age and comorbidities, as well as improvements in imaging/operative techniques/outcomes. The present multispecialty position paper will present the rationale why the management of patients with ACS may need to be individualized.

Background: A major debate in cerebrovascular medicine today is over the choice of the best treatment to implement for stenosis of the carotid artery. Carotid artery stenting is a less invasive technique than endarterectomy for the treatment of carotid stenosis, and is becoming more widely performed, particularly on patients with carotid artery stenosis who present also with comorbidities. To address the aspects related to the use of carotid artery stenting, an Italian multidisciplinary task force comprising the most representative scientific societies concerned with carotid artery disease was set up to provide neurologists, radiologists, cardiologists, vascular surgeons, and all those involved in stroke prevention and treatment with an updated, evidence-based consensus document. Summary: The task force followed a structured methodology to assess the literature on carotid stenosis in order to provide a summary of the main issues related to carotid artery stenting, including the definition of the grade of symptomatic carotid artery stenosis, indications for intervening on the carotid artery stenosis, establishing whether to perform either a surgical or an endovascular procedure, the training, credentialization, and competency needed by physicians to perform carotid artery stenting, acceptable complication rates and risk certification for carotid artery stenting, management of stented patients, durability of carotid artery stenting, and future tasks. Here, we outline the main findings of this effort. Key Messages: As for any guideline or consensus statement, each point is valid as long as the evidence on which it is based remains up to date. In a fast-evolving field of medicine such as that of carotid artery stenosis management, and in particular carotid artery stenting, the stimulation of continuous and fruitful discussion among all professionals involved is mandatory. We hope that this document may provide a standardized basis for the application of carotid artery stenting as implemented today.

Subintimal angioplasty (SAP) is frequently performed for the treatment of critical limb ischemia (CLI) and has been recognized as an effective technique for these patients. Nevertheless, this approach is limited by the lack of controlled re-entry into the true lumen of the target vessel. We describe a novel device for true lumen re-entry after subintimal recanalization of superficial femoral arteries (SFA). We report our experience with six patients treated between April 2009 and January 2010 with a novel system designed to facilitate true lumen re-entry. The device was advanced by ipsilateral antegrade approach through a 6-French sheath. Successful reaccess into the true lumen was obtained in five of six patients without complications. The patient in whom the reaccess to the true lumen was not possible underwent successful bypass surgery. At 30 days follow-up, the SFA was patent in all patients according to echo-Doppler examination. Our preliminary experience indicates that this novel re-entry device increases the success rate of percutaneous revascularization of chronically occluded SFA.

Rationale In patients with >50% carotid artery stenosis (as measured by North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) criteria) suffering a transient ischemic attack or a minor ipsilateral stroke, carotid endarterectomy exerts maximum benefits, when performed within the first 15 days from the initial ischemic symptom. It is also known that the probability of a major stroke spikes within the first few days after a transient ischemic attack/minor stroke and then flattens out in the following days and weeks. It could be hypothesized that urgent carotid endarterectomy has greater benefit than delayed procedure. Aims Demonstrate that urgent carotid endarterectomy is more effective than delayed interventions. Design Centers employing neurolgist/stroke physicians and vascular surgeons will enroll TIA or minor stroke patients with >50 % carotid artery stenosis (Nascet criteria), randomized in two groups: urgent carotid endarterectomy (within 48 hours) and delayed carotid endarterectomy (operated between 48 hours and 15 days after onset of symptoms) Risk factors will be evaluated at enrollment. TIA will be classified by ABCD2 scoring system, and minor stroke by National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores. The study will last 90 days per patient, starting from their initial symptom, and the follow-up will be performed by an indipendent neurologist. A total of 456 patients (228 / group) is needed to observe an absolute difference of 10% between groups. Outcomes Primary end-point is reduction in all types of stroke, AMI or death in urgent endarterectomy groupo compared to delayed ones. Secondary end-points are: Reduction of ipsilateral ischemic stroke in group 1 with respect to Group 2 Identification of predictive risk factors and Confirmation of no different rate for hemorragic/ischemiccomplications between groups.

Background and Purpose— The prevention of stroke and the correct treatment of carotid artery stenosis represent today a major debate in cardiovascular medicine. Beside carotid endarterectomy, carotid angioplasty and stenting is becoming more widely performed for the treatment of severe carotid obstructive disease, and is now accepted as a less invasive technique that may provide an alternative for selected patients, particularly those with significant comorbidities. An Italian multidisciplinary task force, in which converged the most representative scientific societies involved in carotid treatment, was created to provide neurologists, radiologist, cardiologists, vascular surgeons, and all those involved in prevention and treatment of carotid disease with a simple, clear and updated evidence-based consensus document. Summary of Review— This First Consensus Document of the ICCS (Italian Consensus Carotid Stenting)/SPREAD group addressed the main issues related to methodology, definition of symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis, indication and procedures for carotid artery stenting, including the use of devices for preventing procedural embolic complications. Special attention was paid to credentials and competency for physicians qualifications to perform vascular angioplasty and stent placement, including training, acceptable complication rates and certification. Conclusions— As any guideline or consensus statement, also this document is valid as long as the evidence on which it is based remains up-to-date. In such a fast-evolving field of medicine as the management of carotid stenosis, it is mandatory to stimulate a continuous and fruitful discussion among all the professionals involved in this very evolutionary field.

The objectives of this study were to determine whether the presence of a contralateral carotid occlusion increases risk and whether the perioperative results are influenced by a systematic or selective policy of shunting during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in an awake patient. In a retrospective study we compared patients with and without contralateral carotid occlusion (group I, n = 198 - group II, n = 1068) who required CEA. In 77 patients of group I, a shunt was systematically adopted (subgroup A); in the other 121 patients (subgroup B) and in all patients of group II a selective shunting policy was adopted. The risk for the patients with contralateral carotid occlusion was not significantly higher than that for patients without occlusion. Results were not influenced by systematic/selective shunting policy, and the incidence of signs of cerebral ischemia was higher in patients with contralateral carotid occlusion.

Although proof-based medicine has generated much valid evidence for the drawing up of guidelines and recommendations for best clinical practice in symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis, whether and when it is better to employ endarterectomy or stenting as the intervention of choice still remain matters of debate. Moreover, guidelines have been targeted up to now to the ‘representative’ patient, as resulting from the statistical analyses of the studies conducted on the safety and efficacy of both interventions as well as on medical therapy alone. The Italian Stroke Organization (ISO) and Stroke Prevention and Awareness Diffusion (SPREAD) group has thus decided to update its statements for an 8th edition. To this end, a multidisciplinary team of authors representing Italian scientific societies in the neurology, neuroradiology, vascular and endovascular surgery, interventional cardiology, and general medicine fields re-examined the literature available on stroke. Analyses and considerations on patient subgroups have allowed to model the risks/benefits of endarterectomy and stenting in the individual. Accordingly, the guideline's original methodology has been revised to follow the new SIGN (Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network) Grade-like approach, integrating it with new considerations on Precision, or Personalized Medicine. Therefore, this guideline offers recommendations on precision medicine for the single patient, and can be followed in addition to the more standard guidelines.