Objective: The aim of our study was to determine the incidence, characteristics, and clinical outcomes of patients with the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) infection who had presented with and been treated for acute limb ischemia (ALI) during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic.Methods: We performed a single-center, observational cohort study. The data from all patients who had tested positive for COVID-19 and had presented with ALI requiring urgent operative treatment were collected in a prospectively maintained database. For the present series, successful revascularization of the treated arterial segment was defined as the absence of early (<30 days) re-occlusion or major amputation or death within 24 hours. The primary outcomes were successful revascularization, early (#30 days) and late ($30 days) survival, postoperative (#30 days) complications, and limb salvage.Results: We evaluated the data from 20 patients with ALI who were positive for COVID-19. For the period from January to March, the incidence rate of patients presenting with ALI in 2020 was significantly greater than that for the same months in 2019 (23 of 141 [16.3%] vs 3 of 163 [1.8%]; P < .001)]. Of the 20 included patients, 18 were men (90%) and two were women (10%). Their mean age was 75 6 9 years (range, 62-95 years). All 20 patients already had a diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia. Operative treatment was performed in 17 patients (85%). Revascularization was successful in 12 of the 17 (70.6%). Although successful revascularization was not significantly associated with the postoperative use of intravenous heparin (64.7% vs 83.3%; P ¼ .622), no patient who had received intravenous heparin required reintervention. Of the 20 patients, eight (40%) had died in the hospital. The patients who had died were significantly older (81 6 10 years vs 71 6 5 years; P ¼ .008). The use of continuous postoperative systemic heparin infusion was significantly associated with survival (0% vs 57.1%; P ¼ .042). Conclusions:In our preliminary experience, the incidence of ALI has significantly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Italian Lombardy region. Successful revascularization was lower than expected, which we believed was due to a virus-related hypercoagulable state. The use of prolonged systemic heparin might improve surgical treatment efficacy, limb salvage, and overall survival.

BackgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) remains the most common complication after cardiac surgery. The present study aim was to derive an effective bedside tool to predict postoperative AF and its related complications.Methods and ResultsData of 17 262 patients undergoing adult cardiac surgery were retrieved at 3 European university hospitals. A risk score for postoperative AF (POAF score) was derived and validated. In the overall series, 4561 patients (26.4%) developed postoperative AF. In the derivation cohort age, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emergency operation, preoperative intra‐aortic balloon pump, left ventricular ejection fraction <30%, estimated glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min per m2 or dialysis, and any heart valve surgery were independent AF predictors. POAF score was calculated by summing weighting points for each independent AF predictor. According to the prediction model, the incidences of postoperative AF in the derivation cohort were 0, 11.1%; 1, 20.1%; 2, 28.7%; and ≥3, 40.9% (P<0.001), and in the validation cohort they were 0, 13.2%; 1, 19.5%; 2, 29.9%; and ≥3, 42.5% (P<0.001). Patients with a POAF score ≥3, compared with those without arrhythmia, revealed an increased risk of hospital mortality (5.5% versus 3.2%, P=0.001), death after the first postoperative day (5.1% versus 2.6%, P<0.001), cerebrovascular accident (7.8% versus 4.2%, P<0.001), acute kidney injury (15.1% versus 7.1%, P<0.001), renal replacement therapy (3.8% versus 1.4%, P<0.001), and length of hospital stay (mean 13.2 versus 10.2 days, P<0.001).ConclusionsThe POAF score is a simple, accurate bedside tool to predict postoperative AF and its related or accompanying complications.

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.

Late AEFs rarely occur during EVAR follow-up, but the risk is significantly increased when EVAR is performed for PSA after previous aortic surgery and EVAR is performed as an emergency. Conservative and surgical treatment of post-EVAR AEF are both associated with high mortality. However, beyond the perioperative period, surgical correction of AEFs appears to be durable at midterm follow-up.

No abstract