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

Why selective screening for asymptomatic carotid stenosis is currently appropriate: a special report

© 2024 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis GroupIntroduction: Two of the main reasons recent guidelines do not recommend routine population-wide screening programs for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (AsxCS) is that screening could lead to an increase of carotid revascularization procedures and that such mass screening programs may not be cost-effective. Nevertheless, selective screening for AsxCS could have several benefits. This article presents the rationale for such a program. Areas covered: The benefits of selective screening for AsxCS include early recognition of AsxCS allowing timely initiation of preventive measures to reduce future myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, cardiac death and cardiovascular (CV) event rates. Expert opinion: Mass screening programs for AsxCS are neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. Nevertheless, targeted screening of populations at high risk for AsxCS provides an opportunity to identify these individuals earlier rather than later and to initiate a number of lifestyle measures, risk factor modifications, and intensive medical therapy in order to prevent future strokes and CV events. For patients at 'higher risk of stroke' on best medical treatment, a prophylactic carotid intervention may be considered.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

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

A RAND/UCLA-Modified VAS Study on Telemedicine, Telehealth, and Virtual Care in Daily Clinical Practice of Vascular Medicine

Background: Telemedicine is increasingly used in several fields of healthcare, including vascular medicine. This study aimed to investigate the views of experts and propose clinical practice recommendations on the possible applications of telemedicine in vascular medicine. Methods: A clinical guidance group proposed a set of 67 clinical practice recommendations based on the synthesis of current evidence and expert opinion. The Telemedicine Vascular Medicine Working Group included 32 experts from Europe evaluating the appropriateness of each clinical practice recommendation based on published RAND/UCLA methodology in two rounds. Results: In the first round, 60.9% of clinical practice recommendations were rated as appropriate, 35.9% as uncertain, and 3.1% as inappropriate. The strongest agreement (a median value of 10) was reached on statements regarding the usefulness of telemedicine during the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, its usefulness for geographical areas that are difficult to access, and the superiority of video calls compared to phone calls only. The lowest degree of agreement (a median value of 2) was reported on statements regarding the utility of telemedicine being limited to the COVID-19 pandemic and regarding the applicability of teleconsultation in the diagnosis and management of abdominal aortic aneurysm. In the second round, 11 statements were re-evaluated to reduce variability. Conclusions: This study highlights the levels of agreement and the points that raise concern on the use of telemedicine in vascular medicine. It emphasizes the need for further clarification on various issues, including infrastructure, logistics, and legislation.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

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