Search

© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved., Jolobe supports that screening for asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) should be extended to patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Indeed, a 2021 meta-analysis (n = 20 studies; 49,070 patients) demonstrated that the pooled prevalence of >50% AsxCS inpatients with NVAF was 12.4% (range: 4.4–24.3%). Although this issue was not discussed in our manuscript, the optimal management of patients presenting with a recent transient ischemic attack [TIA]/ischemic stroke with an ipsilateral 50–99% carotid stenosis and concomitant NVAF was addressed by the 2023 European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) carotid guidelines. It was recognized that although no guidelines have provided recommendations regarding the management of these patients, a pragmatic approach is warranted.

Background: Identifying sex-related differences/variables associated with 30 day/1 year mortality in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). Methods: Multicenter/retrospective/observational study. A database was sent to all the Italian vascular surgeries to collect all the patients operated on for CLTI in 2019. Acute lower-limb ischemia and neuropathic-diabetic foot are not included. Follow-up: One year. Data on demographics/comorbidities, treatments/outcomes, and 30 day/1 year mortality were investigated. Results: Information on 2399 cases (69.8% men) from 36/143 (25.2%) centers. Median (IQR) age: 73 (66–80) and 79 (71–85) years for men/women, respectively (p < 0.0001). Women were more likely to be over 75 (63.2% vs. 40.1%, p = 0.0001). More men smokers (73.7% vs. 42.2%, p < 0.0001), are on hemodialysis (10.1% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.006), affected by diabetes (61.9% vs. 52.8%, p < 0.0001), dyslipidemia (69.3% vs. 61.3%, p < 0.0001), hypertension (91.8% vs. 88.5%, p = 0.011), coronaropathy (43.9% vs. 29.4%, p < 0.0001), bronchopneumopathy (37.1% vs. 25.6%, p < 0.0001), underwent more open/hybrid surgeries (37.9% vs. 28.8%, p < 0.0001), and minor amputations (22% vs. 13.7%, p < 0.0001). More women underwent endovascular revascularizations (61.6% vs. 55.2%, p = 0.004), major amputations (9.6% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.024), and obtained limb-salvage if with limited gangrene (50.8% vs. 44.9%, p = 0.017). Age > 75 (HR = 3.63, p = 0.003) is associated with 30 day mortality. Age > 75 (HR = 2.14, p < 0.0001), nephropathy (HR = 1.54, p < 0.0001), coronaropathy (HR = 1.26, p = 0.036), and infection/necrosis of the foot (dry, HR = 1.42, p = 0.040; wet, HR = 2.04, p < 0.0001) are associated with 1 year mortality. No sex-linked difference in mortality statistics. Conclusion: Women exhibit fewer comorbidities but are struck by CLTI when over 75, a factor associated with short- and mid-term mortality, explaining why mortality does not statistically differ between the sexes.

Background: Identifying sex-related differences/variables associated with 30-day/1-year mortality in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). Methods: Multicenter/retrospective/observational study. Database sent to all-the-Italian vascular surgeries to collect all-the¬-patients operated for CLTI in 2019. Acute lower-limb ischemia and neuropathic-diabetic foot not included. Follow-up: 1-year. Data on demographics/comorbidities, treatments/outcome, and 30-day/1-year mortality investigated. Results: Information on 2399 cases (69.8% men) from 36/143 (25.2%) centers. Median (IQR) age: 73 (66-80) and 79 (71-85) yrs for men/women, respectively (p75 (HR3.63, p=.003) associated with 30-day mortality. Age >75 (HR2.14, p

Background: The optimal antithrombotic (antiplatelet or anticoagulant) treatment of patients undergoing extracranial carotid artery interventions is a subject of debate. The aim of this multidisciplinary document was to critically review the recommendations of current guidelines, taking into consideration the results of recently published studies. Methods: The various antithrombotic strategies reported were evaluated for asymptomatic and symptomatic patients undergoing extracranial carotid artery interventions (endarterectomy, transfemoral carotid artery stenting [CAS] or transcarotid artery revascularization [TCAR]). Based on a critical review, a series of recommendations were formulated by an international expert panel. Results: For asymptomatic patients, we recommend low-dose aspirin (75–100 mg/day) or clopidogrel (75 mg/day) with the primary goal to reduce the risk of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular event rates rather than to reduce the risk of stroke. For symptomatic patients, we recommend dual antiplatelet treatment (DAPT) initiated within 24 h of the index event to reduce the risk of recurrent events. We suggest that following transfemoral CAS or TCAR, patients continue DAPT for 1 month after which a single antiplatelet agent is used. High level of evidence to support anticoagulant treatment for patients with carotid artery disease is lacking. Conclusions: The antithrombotic treatment offered to carotid patients should be individualized, taking into account the presence of symptoms, the type of intervention and the goal of the treatment. The duration and type of DAPT (ticagrelor instead of clopidogrel) should be evaluated in future trials.

© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved., ackground: Current guidelines do not recommend screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (AsxCS). The rationale behind this recommendation is that detection of AsxCS may lead to an unnecessary carotid intervention. In contrast, screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms is strongly recommended. Methods: A critical analysis of the literature was performed to evaluate the implications of detecting AsxCS. Results: Patients with AsxCS are at high risk for future stroke, myocardial infarction and vascular death. Population-wide screening for AsxCS should not be recommended. Additionally, screening of high-risk individuals for AsxCS with the purpose of identifying candidates for a carotid intervention is inappropriate. Instead, selective screening for AsxCS should be considered and should be viewed as an opportunity to identify individuals at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and future cardiovascular events for the timely initiation of intensive medical therapy and risk factor modification. Conclusions: Although mass screening should not be recommended, there are several arguments suggesting that selective screening for AsxCS should be considered. The rationale supporting such selective screening is to optimize risk factor control and to initiate intensive medical therapy for prevention of future cardiovascular events, rather than to identify candidates for an intervention.

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.

International guidelines strongly recommend statins alone or in combination with other lipid-lowering agents to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels for patients with asymptomatic/symptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS/SCS). Lowering LDL-C levels is associated with significant reductions in transient ischemic attack, stroke, cardiovascular (CV) event and death rates. The aim of this multi-disciplinary overview is to summarize the benefits and risks associated with lowering LDL-C with statins or non-statin medications for Asx/SCS patients. The cerebrovascular and CV beneficial effects associated with statins, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors and other non-statin lipid-lowering agents (e.g. fibrates, ezetimibe) are reviewed. The use of statins and PCSK9 inhibitors is associated with several beneficial effects for Asx/SCS patients, including carotid plaque stabilization and reduction of stroke rates. Ezetimibe and fibrates are associated with smaller reductions in stroke rates. The side-effects resulting from statin and PCSK9 inhibitor use are also highlighted. The benefits associated with lowering LDL-C with statins or non-statin lipid lowering agents (e.g. PCSK9 inhibitors) outweigh the risks and potential side-effects. Irrespective of their LDL-C levels, all Asx/SCS patients should receive high-dose statin treatment±ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors for reduction not only of LDL-C levels, but also of stroke, cardiovascular mortality and coronary event rates.

© The Author(s) 2022. Sage Publications, Despite the publication of several national/international guidelines, the optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) remains controversial. This article compares 3 recently released guidelines (the 2020 German-Austrian, the 2021 European Stroke Organization [ESO], and the 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery [SVS] guidelines) vs the 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) guidelines regarding the optimal management of AsxCS patients.The 2017 ESVS guidelines defined specific imaging/clinical parameters that may identify patient subgroups at high future stroke risk and recommended that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) should or carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be considered for these individuals. The 2020 German-Austrian guidelines provided similar recommendations with the 2017 ESVS Guidelines. The 2021 ESO Guidelines also recommended CEA for AsxCS patients at high risk for stroke on best medical treatment (BMT), but recommended against routine use of CAS in these patients. Finally, the SVS guidelines provided a strong recommendation for CEA+BMT vs BMT alone for low-surgical risk patients with >70% AsxCS. Thus, the ESVS, German-Austrian, and ESO guidelines concurred that all AsxCS patients should receive risk factor modification and BMT, but CEA should or CAS may also be considered for certain AsxCS patient subgroups at high risk for future ipsilateral ischemic stroke.

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

After 3 decades of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA), the infrarenal neck is considered the most important determining factor for an uncomplicated and sustainable outcome. As the envelope has been pushed toward treating more challenging infrarenal necks with standard endografts, there are numerous publications regarding hostile aortic neck criteria.1–4 During preoperative planning and sizing, aortic neck length, diameter, suprarenal and infrarenal angulation, shape, and occurrence of calcium and thrombus are measured by most endovascular specialists, using dedicated software. Moreover, all endograft manufacturers have defined specific instructions for use (IFU) concerning infrarenal neck characteristics. Infrarenal neck length seems to be one of the most important criteria to consider, with a minimum of 10 or 15 mm, according to the IFU of most commercially available ndografts.3 According to most CoreLab definitions, the infrarenal neck ends when the aortic diameter increases >10% compared with baseline (ie, the diameter just below the lower margin of the lowest renal artery).5,6 Although the determination of the pre-EVAR neck characteristics gives the treating physicians a handle in the sizing and planning process, it does not always match with the actual circumferential seal of the endograft in the aortic neck after deployment. Oversizing the endograft’s main body often extends the seal compared with the predefined aortic neck length. However, especially in hostile necks, this does not always have the anticipated and desired effect.7 It seems reasonable to assume that the post-EVAR achieved circumferential apposition between the endograft and the aortic wall is a better indicator for outcome than the pre-EVAR determined aortic neck characteristics alone. The so-called sealing zone in the infrarenal aortic neck has received less attention in EVAR literature so far. A possible explanation for this might be that it is harder to define than the well-known aortic neck criteria. It also depends on the positioning of the endograft during the procedure. Moreover, the circumferential apposition between the endograft and the aortic wall has to be determined on the post- EVAR computed tomography (CT) scan, which is not a standard measurement so far.8 A Delphi method is often used to orchestrate expert opinions systematically when evidence is scarce or lacking, and research questions cannot simply be studied with experimental and epidemiological methods.9 In this study, the Delphi method is used to propose a consensus definition of the infrarenal sealing zone. Furthermore, it provides an algorithm to determine when and if adjunctive procedure(s) or reintervention should be considered in case of potential proximal sealing failure of the endograft.

Background: This guideline (GL) on carotid surgery as updating of "Stroke: Italian guidelines for Prevention and Treatment" of the ISO-SPREAD Italian Stroke Organization-Group, has recently been published in the National Guideline System and shared with the Italian Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (SICVE) and other Scientific Societies and Patient's Association. Methods: GRADE-SIGN version, AGREE quality of reporting checklist. Clinical questions formulated according to the PICO model. Recommendations developed based on clinical questions by a multidisciplinary experts' panel and patients' representatives. Systematic reviews performed for each PICO question. Considered judgements filled by assessing the evidence level, direction, and strength of the recommendations. Results: The panel provided indications and recommendations for appropriate, comprehensive, and individualized management of patients with carotid stenosis. Diagnostic and therapeutic processes of the best medical therapy, carotid endarterectomy (CEA), carotid stenting (CAS) according to the evidences and the judged opinions were included. Symptomatic carotid stenosis in elective and emergency, asymptomatic carotid stenosis, association with ischemic heart disease, preoperative diagnostics, types of anesthesia, monitoring in case of CEA, CEA techniques, comparison between CEA and CAS, post-surgical carotid restenosis, and medical therapy are the main topics, even with analysis of uncertainty areas for risk-benefit assessments in the individual patient (personalized medicine [PM]). Conclusions: This GL updates on the main recommendations for the most appropriate diagnostic and medical-surgical management of patients with atherosclerotic carotid artery stenosis to prevent ischemic stroke. This GL also provides useful elements for the application of PM in good clinical practice.

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.

After peaking in the 1960s’, cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) have shown a consistent decline in western countries in recent decades [1].Despite this,CVDs remain the major cause of mortality and morbidity in industrialized populations, with relevant associated socio-economical issues, while their incidence is increasing in developing countries. Several factors have likely contributed to the reduced incidence of CVDs in industrialized societies, including an increase in education and attention to health issues, lifestyle changes and improvement in diagnostic facilities and therapeutic tools. Epidemiologic studies have played an outstanding role in the decline of CVDs. Indeed, they have allowed for the identification of habits and conditions which expose healthy subjects to an increased risk of development of atherosclerosis and its complications They have also led to the implementation of appropriate programs and campaigns aimed at fighting the identified risk factors by means of changes in diet and lifestyle and the use of specific drug treatments. In particular, tight control and prevention of hypertension, smoking and hypercholesterolemia has largely contributed to the reduction of CVDs, accounting for more than 50% of the reduction of mortality from the 1960s’ to the 1990s’ [2].This approach was also crucial in improving the clinical outcomes of secondary prevention for CVDs.

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.

n/a

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.