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.
Isolated distal deep vein thrombosis (IDDVT) is presumed to be more benign than proximal DVT (PDVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), suggesting a need for different management approaches. This subgroup analysis of the RE-COVERY DVT/PE global, observational study investigated patient characteristics, hospitalization details, and anticoagulant therapy in patients with IDDVT in real-world settings in 34 countries enrolled from January 2016 to May 2017. Data were analyzed descriptively according to the type and location of the index venous thromboembolism (VTE): IDDVT, PDVT ± distal DVT (DDVT), and PE ± DVT. Of the 6,095 eligible patients, 323 with DVT located outside the lower limb and no PE were excluded. Of the remaining 5,772 patients, 17.6% had IDDVT, 39.9% had PDVT ± DDVT, and 42.5% had PE ± DVT. IDDVT patients were younger and had fewer risk factors for VTE than the other groups. Other comorbidities were less frequent in the IDDVT group, except for varicose veins, superficial thrombophlebitis, and venous insufficiency. IDDVT patients were less likely to be diagnosed in an emergency department (22.3 vs. 29.7% for PDVT ± DDVT and 45.4% for PE ± DVT) or hospitalized for VTE (29.2 vs. 48.5% for PDVT ± DDVT and 75.0% for PE ± DVT). At hospital discharge or 14 days after diagnosis (whichever was later), non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants were the most commonly used anticoagulants (55.6% for IDDVT, 54.7% for PDVT ± DDVT, and 52.8% for PE ± DVT). Although differences in patient characteristics, risk factors, and clinical management were identified, anticoagulant treatment of IDDVT was almost equal to that of PDVT or PE. Prospective studies should investigate whether, in a global perspective, this is an appropriate use of anticoagulants.
Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02596230.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.