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.

Introduction: Aim of the study is to assess the occurrence of early stage coagulopathy and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) in patients with mild to moderate respiratory distress secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Materials and methods: Data of patients hospitalized from 18 March 2020 to 20 April 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Two scores for the screening of coagulopathy (SIC and non-overt DIC scores) were calculated. The occurrence of thrombotic complication, death, and worsening respiratory function requiring non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or admission to ICU were recorded, and these outcomes were correlated with the results of each score. Chi-square test, receiver-operating characteristic curve, and logistic regression analysis were used as appropriate. p Values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: Data of 32 patients were analyzed. Overt-DIC was diagnosed in two patients (6.2%), while 26 (81.2%) met the criteria for non-overt DIC. Non-overt DIC score values ≥4 significantly correlated with the need of NIV/ICU (p = 0.02) and with the occurrence of thrombotic complications (p = 0.04). A score ≥4 was the optimal cut-off value, performing better than SIC score (p = 0.0018). Values ≥4 in patients with thrombotic complications were predictive of death (p = 0.03). Conclusions: Overt DIC occurred in 6.2% of non-ICU patients hospitalized for a mild to moderate COVID-19 respiratory distress, while 81.2% fulfilled the criteria for non-overt DIC. The non-overt DIC score performed better than the SIC score in predicting the need of NIV/ICU and the occurrence of thrombotic complications, as well as in predicting mortality in patients with thrombotic complications, with a score ≥4 being detected as the optimal cut-off.

No abstract

Our results with U-CEA confirm that this population has a higher risk profile compared with elective surgery. The type of acute presentation is correlated with perioperative risk. U-CEA was safe when performed on patients presenting with transient ischemic attack. An acceptable complication rate was achieved for patients with minor to moderate strokes. The poorest outcomes occurred in patients presenting with stroke in evolution: U-CEA in these patients should be offered with extreme caution, although we are aware that a conservative treatment may not grant a better prognosis.

PA and MA both achieved satisfactory results in primary and secondary patency rates, as well as limb salvage, during long-term follow-up. The differences between the two groups were small and not statistically significant. PA was burdened by similar postoperative nerve and wound complications compared with MA. The in-hospital stay after PA was significantly lower.

ObjectiveWe describe our initial experience with the use of the TriVascular Ovation endograft system for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA).MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed data from patients treated for AAA using the Ovation endograft at two institutions from January 2011 to September 2012. Main outcomes included primary success, survival, complications, and device-related events. The mean follow-up period was 10 months (range 1–22 months).ResultsThirty-seven patients (male: 95%, mean age: 76 yr) were treated for AAA (mean diameter: 54 mm) with the Ovation endograft. Local or regional anesthesia was used in 86.5% of cases. Percutaneous access was utilized in 73% of cases. Primary success was 89.2% (33/37). Four adjunctive procedures were required including two distal extensions (type 1b endoleak and iliac limb disconnection resulting in type III endoleak) and two bypass surgeries (limb graft occlusion and gate cannulation failure). No deaths or major complications were reported during the procedure or in follow-up. No type I, III, or IV endoleak, AAA enlargement, AAA rupture, stent fracture, migration, or endovascular or surgical reintervention were reported during the follow-up period. Type II endoleak was observed in two patients. Asymptomatic narrowing of both iliac limbs was observed in one patient at 6 months.ConclusionsOur initial experience with the Ovation endograft demonstrated encouraging results in patients with AAA.

Blunt abdominal trauma with major vascular involvement is found to be rare. Although few series have been reported in the literature, the true incidence of blunt abdominal aortic injury is unknown. Different modalities of blunt trauma may occur among civilians with steering wheel and seat belt injury secondary to motor vehicle accident the most frequent. Mechanical forces produce variable patterns of injury; therefore, the onset of signs and symptoms can be different. Dissection and thrombosis of the abdominal aorta have been frequently described among seat-belted adult patients with major vascular involvement. The associated abdominal viscus and/or vertebral lesions must always be taken into account. Prompt diagnosis allows adequate surgical treatment. We present the case of a 66-year-old woman, restrained front passenger involved in a motor vehicle collision, who had small bowel transection, vertebral fractures, and aortic partial occlusion below inferior mesenteric artery with bilateral iliac artery involvement. Along with the case reported, the purpose of this study is to highlight and compare features and management of the previous cases described in the English literature.

Purpose: To investigate the association between the bird-beak configuration (BBC), a wedge-shaped gap between the undersurface of a thoracic endograft and the lesser curvature of the arch after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), and postoperative outcome after TEVAR. Methods: The study was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify all case series reporting BBC after TEVAR between 2006 and April 2018. Data analysis was performed considering the difference in the risk of complications for presence vs absence of BBC. After screening 1633 articles, 21 studies were identified that matched the selection criteria; 12 of these reported detailed information to investigate the postoperative outcome using proportion meta-analysis with a random effects model. The pooled risk difference is reported with the 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity of the included studies was assessed with the I2 statistic (low 25%, medium 50%, high 75%). Results: Complications occurred within a range of 0 to 72 months in 14.7% (95% CI 7.4% to 27.3%) of patients with BBC and in 6.3% (95% CI 2.5% to 15.4%) of patients without BBC. A cumulative incidence could not be assessed. The summary risk difference was 11.1% (95% CI −0.1% to 22.3%, p=0.052). There was significant heterogeneity ( I2=85.6%). The Egger test did not show evidence of publication bias (p=0.975). When specifically considering type Ia endoleak and endograft migration, the risk difference between BBC and non-BBC patients was 8.2% (95% CI 0.3% to 16.1%, p=0.042; I2=69.0%). The specific risk difference for endograft collapse/infolding and thrombosis was 3.7% (95% CI −3.5% to 11.1%, p=0.308; I2=10.2%). Conclusion: At present the literature does not provide statistical evidence to establish an overall prognostic value of the BBC. Nevertheless, the BBC appears to be associated with a high risk of type Ia endoleak and endograft migration, which warrants specific and long-term surveillance. Clinically relevant values for BBC grading should be established to perhaps define indications for preemptive treatment based on the presence of BBC only.