International Union of Angiology (IUA) consensus paper on imaging strategies in atherosclerotic carotid artery imaging: From basic strategies to advanced approaches

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality and disability in developed countries. According to WHO, an estimated 17.9 million people died from CVDs in 2019, representing 32% of all global deaths. Of these deaths, 85% were due to major adverse cardiac and cerebral events. Early detection and care for individuals at high risk could save lives, alleviate suffering, and diminish economic burden associated with these diseases. Carotid artery disease is not only a well-established risk factor for ischemic stroke, contributing to 10%–20% of strokes or transient ischemic attacks (TIAs), but it is also a surrogate marker of generalized atherosclerosis and a predictor of cardiovascular events. In addition to diligent history, physical examination, and laboratory detection of metabolic abnormalities leading to vascular changes, imaging of carotid arteries adds very important information in assessing stroke and overall cardiovascular risk. Spanning from carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) measurements in arteriopathy to plaque burden, morphology and biology in more advanced disease, imaging of carotid arteries could help not only in stroke prevention but also in ameliorating cardiovascular events in other territories (e.g. in the coronary arteries). While ultrasound is the most widely available and affordable imaging methods, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), their combination and other more sophisticated methods have introduced novel concepts in detection of carotid plaque characteristics and risk assessment of stroke and other cardiovascular events. However, in addition to robust progress in usage of these methods, all of them have limitations which should be taken into account. The main purpose of this consensus document is to discuss pros but also cons in clinical, epidemiological and research use of all these techniques

Thromboembolic Disease in Patients With Cancer and COVID-19: Risk Factors, Prevention and Practical Thromboprophylaxis Recommendations–State-of-the-Art.

Cancer and COVID-19 are both well-established risk factors predisposing to thrombosis. Both disease entities are correlated with increased incidence of venous thrombotic events through multifaceted pathogenic mechanisms involving the interaction of cancer cells or SARS-CoV2 on the one hand and the coagulation system and endothelial cells on the other hand. Thromboprophylaxis is recommended for hospitalized patients with active cancer and high-risk outpatients with cancer receiving anticancer treatment. Universal thromboprophylaxis with a high prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) or therapeutic dose in select patients, is currentlyindicated for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Also, prophylactic anticoagulation is recommended for outpatients with COVID-19 at high risk for thrombosis or disease worsening. However, whether there is an additive risk of thrombosis when a patient with cancer is infected with SARS-CoV2 remains unclear In the current review, we summarize and critically discuss the literature regarding the epidemiology of thrombotic events in patients with cancer and concomitant COVID-19, the thrombotic risk assessment, and the recommendations on thromboprophylaxis for this subgroup of patients. Current data do not support an additive thrombotic risk for patients with cancer and COVID-19. Of note, patients with cancer have less access to intensive care unit care, a setting associated with high thrombotic risk. Based on current evidence, patients with cancer and COVID-19 should be assessed with well-established risk assessment models for medically ill patients and receive thromboprophylaxis, preferentially with LMWH, according to existing recommendations. Prospective trials on well-characterized populations do not exist

International Union of Angiology (IUA) consensus paper on imaging strategies in atherosclerotic carotid artery imaging: From basic strategies to advanced approaches.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality and disability in developed countries. According to WHO, an estimated 17.9 million people died from CVDs in 2019, representing 32% of all global deaths. Of these deaths, 85% were due to major adverse cardiac and cerebral events. Early detection and care for individuals at high risk could save lives, alleviate suffering, and diminish economic burden associated with these diseases. Carotid artery disease is not only a well-established risk factor for ischemic stroke, contributing to 10%-20% of strokes or transient ischemic attacks (TIAs), but it is also a surrogate marker of generalized atherosclerosis and a predictor of cardiovascular events. In addition to diligent history, physical examination, and laboratory detection of metabolic abnormalities leading to vascular changes, imaging of carotid arteries adds very important information in assessing stroke and overall cardiovascular risk. Spanning from carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) measurements in arteriopathy to plaque burden, morphology and biology in more advanced disease, imaging of carotid arteries could help not only in stroke prevention but also in ameliorating cardiovascular events in other territories (e.g. in the coronary arteries). While ultrasound is the most widely available and affordable imaging methods, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), their combination and other more sophisticated methods have introduced novel concepts in detection of carotid plaque characteristics and risk assessment of stroke and other cardiovascular events. However, in addition to robust progress in usage of these methods, all of them have limitations which should be taken into account. The main purpose of this consensus document is to discuss pros but also cons in clinical, epidemiological and research use of all these techniques

Thromboembolic Disease in Patients With Cancer and COVID-19:Risk Factors, Prevention and Practical Thromboprophylaxis Recommendations–State-of-the-Art

Cancer and COVID-19 are both well-established risk factors predisposing to thrombosis. Both disease entities are correlated with increased incidence of venous thrombotic events through multifaceted pathogenic mechanisms involving the interaction of cancer cells or SARS-CoV2 on the one hand and the coagulation system and endothelial cells on the other hand. Thromboprophylaxis is recommended for hospitalized patients with active cancer and high-risk outpatients with cancer receiving anticancer treatment. Universal thromboprophylaxis with a high prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) or therapeutic dose in select patients, is currently indicated for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Also, prophylactic anticoagulation is recommended for outpatients with COVID-19 at high risk for thrombosis or disease worsening. However, whether there is an additive risk of thrombosis when a patient with cancer is infected with SARSCoV2 remains unclear. In the current review, we summarize and critically discuss the literature regarding the epidemiology of thrombotic events in patients with cancer and concomitant COVID-19, the thrombotic risk assessment, and the recommendations on thromboprophylaxis for this subgroup of patients. Current data do not support an additive thrombotic risk for patients with cancer and COVID-19. Of note, patients with cancer have less access to intensive care unit care, a setting associated with high thrombotic risk. Based on current evidence, patients with cancer and COVID-19 should be assessed with well-established risk assessment models for medically ill patients and receive thromboprophylaxis, preferentially with LMWH, according to existing recommendations. Prospective trials on well-characterized populations do not exist

Clarifying the rationale supporting selective screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis

NO ABSTRACT AVAILABL

An International, Multispecialty, Expert-Based Delphi Consensus Document on Controversial Issues in the Management of Patients with Asymptomatic and Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis

Objective: Despite the publication of various national/international guidelines, several questions concerning the management of patients with asymptomatic (AsxCS) and symptomatic (SxCS) carotid stenosis remain unanswered. The aim of this international, multi-specialty, expert-based Delphi Consensus document was to address these issues to help clinicians make decisions when guidelines are unclear. Methods: Fourteen controversial topics were identified. A 3-round Delphi Consensus process was performed including 61 experts. The aim of Round 1 was to investigate the differing views and opinions regarding these unresolved topics. In Round 2, clarifications were asked from each participant. In Round 3, the questionnaire was re-sent to all participants for their final vote. Consensus was reached when ≥75% of experts agreed on a specific response. Results: Most experts agreed that: (i) the current periprocedural/in-hospital stroke/death thresholds for performing a carotid intervention should be lowered from 6 to 4% in SxCS and from 3 to 2% in AsxCS patients, (ii) the time threshold for a patient being considered "recently symptomatic" should be reduced from the current definition of "6 months" to 3 months or less, (iii) 80-99% AsxCS carries a higher risk of stroke compared with 60-79% AsxCS, (iv) factors beyond the grade of stenosis and symptoms should be added to the indications for revascularization in AsxCS patients (e.g., plaque features of vulnerability and silent infarctions on brain CT scans), and, (v) shunting should be used selectively, rather than always or never. Consensus could not be reached on the remaining topics due to conflicting, inadequate, or controversial evidence. Conclusions: The present international, multi-specialty expert-based Delphi Consensus document attempted to provide responses to several unanswered/unresolved issues. However, consensus could not be achieved on some topics, highlighting areas requiring future research