Background Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence.Methods ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362.

No abstract

No abstract

AimA prospective online survey was conducted by the Cardiovascular Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) to evaluate the gender gap within interventional radiology (IR) and the barriers facing women in IR.Materials and MethodsA questionnaire (“Appendix”) was devised by the authors and the CIRSE communication and publication team and sent electronically to 750 identifiable female members of CIRSE. Responses were collected from 7 August to 24 August 2017.ResultsThe response rate was 19.9% (n = 149) with highest responses from UK (18%), Italy (11%), Germany (11%), Spain (7%), Netherlands (5%), France (5%), Sweden (4%), USA (4%). 91% of the respondents were between 31 and 46 years, 83% work full time, 62% spend > 50% of their working time in IR, and 67% practice in a university or tertiary referral institution. 85% were in the minority in their department. 52% had no leadership role in their department, but 67% expressed willingness to consider a leadership position. Their main concerns were work/family life balance, the risks of radiation exposure, the effect of pregnancy on training and practice and the male-dominated work environment.ConclusionThis survey highlights issues experienced by women in IR. Clear guidance on concerns regarding radiation exposure particularly during pregnancy is needed. Structured and supportive training is required for female IRs who may wish to train or work flexibly. The male-dominated environment is discouraging, and a scheme to promote female IRs would encourage women to take on senior leadership positions and attract more women into the specialty.

Interventional Radiology (IR) is an essential part of modern medicine, delivering minimally invasive patient-focused care, which has been proven to be safe and effective in both elective and emergency settings. The aim of this document is to outline the core requirements and standards for the provision of Interventional Radiological services, including training, certification, manpower, and accreditation. The ultimate challenge will be the adoption of these recommendations by different countries and health economies around the world, in turn ensuring equal access to IR treatments for all patients, the appropriate distribution of resources for IR service provision as well as the continued development of safe and high-quality IR services in Europe and beyond.

Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI) is a putative new theory that has been suggested by some to have a direct causative relation with the symptomatology associated with multiple sclerosis (MS) [1]. The core foundation of this theory is that there is abnormal venous drainage from the brain due to outflow obstruction in the draining jugular vein and/or azygos veins. This abnormal venous drainage, which is characterised by special ultrasound criteria, called the “venous hemodynamic insufficiency severity score” (VHISS), is said to cause intracerebral flow disturbance or outflow problems that lead to periventricular deposits [2]. In the CCSVI theory, these deposits have a great similarity to the iron deposits seen around the veins in the legs in patients with chronic deep vein thrombosis. Zamboni, who first described this new theory, has promoted balloon dilatation to treat the outflow problems, thereby curing CCSVI and by the same token alleviating MS complaints. However, this theory does not fit into the existing bulk of scientific data concerning the pathophysiology of MS. In contrast, there is increasing worldwide acceptance of CCSVI and the associated balloon dilatation treatment, even though there is no supporting scientific evidence. Furthermore, most of the information we have comes from one source only. The treatment is called “liberation treatment,” and the results of the treatment can be watched on YouTube. There are well-documented testimonies by MS patients who have gained improvement in their personal quality of life (QOL) after treatment. However, there are no data available from patients who underwent unsuccessful treatments with which to obtain a more balanced view. The current forum for the reporting of success in treating CCSVI and thus MS seems to be the Internet. At the CIRCE office and the MS Centre in Amsterdam, we receive approximately 10 to 20 inquiries a month about this treatment. In addition, many interventional radiologists, who are directly approached by MS patients, contact the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) for advice. Worldwide, several centres are actively promoting and performing balloon dilatation, with or without stenting, for CCSVI. Thus far, no trial data are available, and there is currently no randomized controlled trial (RCT) in progress Therefore, the basis for this new treatment rests on anecdotal evidence and successful testimonies by patients on the Internet. CIRSE believes that this is not a sound basis on which to offer a new treatment, which could have possible procedure-related complications, to an often desperate patient population.

ObjectivesTo explore how the concept of randomization is described by clinicians and understood by patients in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and how it contributes to patient understanding and recruitment.Study Design and SettingQualitative analysis of 73 audio recordings of recruitment consultations from five, multicenter, UK-based RCTs with identified or anticipated recruitment difficulties.ResultsOne in 10 appointments did not include any mention of randomization. Most included a description of the method or process of allocation. Descriptions often made reference to gambling-related metaphors or similes, or referred to allocation by a computer. Where reference was made to a computer, some patients assumed that they would receive the treatment that was “best for them”. Descriptions of the rationale for randomization were rarely present and often only came about as a consequence of patients questioning the reason for a random allocation.ConclusionsThe methods and processes of randomization were usually described by recruiters, but often without clarity, which could lead to patient misunderstanding. The rationale for randomization was rarely mentioned. Recruiters should avoid problematic gambling metaphors and illusions of agency in their explanations and instead focus on clearer descriptions of the rationale and method of randomization to ensure patients are better informed about randomization and RCT participation.

Vascular injury as a complication of disc surgery was first reported in 1945 by Linton and White. It is a rare but potentially fatal complication. The high mortality rate (40-100%) is attributed to a combination of rapid blood loss and the failure to recognise the cause of the deteriorating patient. Early diagnosis and treatment is essential. Treatment has traditionally been by open vascular surgical repair, however with modern imaging and endovascular techniques, minimally invasive treatment should be considered first line in patients who are stable. We present the case of a 51-year-old woman who sustained common iliac artery injury during lumbar spinal surgery that was treated successfully using a covered stent.