Aneurysm-osteoarthritis syndrome with visceral and iliac artery aneurysms

Objective: Aneurysms-osteoarthritis syndrome (AOS), caused by SMAD3 mutations, is a recently described autosomal-dominant syndrome c

Evaluating training for a simulated team in complex whole procedure simulations in the endovascular suite

Introduction: Simulators supporting the development of technical skills for complex procedures are gaining prominence. Safe performance of complex procedures requires effective team interactions. Our research group creates ‘whole’ procedure simulations to produce the psychological fidelity of clinical settings. Recruitment of real interventional team (IT) members has proved challenging. Actors as a simulated team are expensive. We hypothesised that medical students and trainees in a vascular unit could authentically portray members of the endovascular suite for carotid stenting. Methods: This paper describes the evaluation of a training programme for a simulated IT. Participants rated the extent to which programmes objectives were met and realism of simulations. Researchers’ field notes provided insight into strengths and weaknesses of the programme. Results: Seven members from the vascular unit undertook training. Learning objectives were largely met. Nineteen simulations with 13 interventionalists were performed. Realism levels were at least moderate. Simulated IT members reported increased understanding of teamwork and roles in the endovascular suite. Discussion: A simulated IT proved feasible. Authentic psychological fidelity complemented the physical fidelity of the simulated suite. Although there were areas for development in training, this approach might contribute considerably to interventionalist training and increase knowledge and skills of vascular trainees and medical students

Transatlantic multispecialty consensus on fundamental endovascular skills: results of a Delphi consensus study

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to establish a consensus on Fundamental Endovascular Skills (FES) for educational purposes and development of training curricula for endovascular procedures. The term “Fundamental Endovascular Skills” is widely used; however, the current literature does not explicitly describe what skills are included in this concept. Endovascular interventions are performed by several specialties that may have opposing perspectives on these skills.MethodsA two round Delphi questionnaire approach was used. Experts from interventional cardiology, interventional radiology, and vascular surgery from the United States and Europe were invited to participate. An electronic questionnaire was generated by endovascular therapists with an appropriate educational background but who would not participate in subsequent rounds. The questionnaire consisted of 50 statements describing knowledge, technical, and behavioral skills during endovascular procedures. Experts received the questionnaires by email. They were asked to rate the importance of each skill on a Likert scale from 1 to 5. A statement was considered fundamental when more than 90% of the experts rated it 4 or 5 out of 5.ResultsTwenty-three of 53 experts invited agreed to participate: six interventional radiologists (2 USA, 4 Europe), 10 vascular surgeons (4 USA, 6 Europe), and seven interventional cardiologists (4 USA, 3 Europe). There was a 100% response rate in the first round and 87% in the second round. Results showed excellent consensus among responders (Cronbach's alpha = .95 first round; .93 second round). Ninety percent of all proposed skills were considered fundamental. The most critical skills were determined.ConclusionsA transatlantic multispecialty consensus was achieved about the content of “FES” among interventional radiologists, interventional cardiologists, and vascular surgeons from Europe and the United States. These results can serve as directive principles for developing endovascular training curricula

Stroke risk management in carotid atherosclerotic disease:A clinical consensus statement of the ESC council on stroke and the ESC working group on aorta and peripheral vascular diseases

Carotid atherosclerotic disease continues to be an important cause of stroke, often disabling or fatal. Such strokes could be largely prevented through optimal medical therapy and carotid revascularization. Advancements in discovery research and imaging along with evidence from recent pharmacology and interventional clinical trials and registries and the progress in acute stroke management have markedly expanded knowledge base for clinical decisions in carotid stenosis. Nevertheless, there is variability in carotid-related stroke prevention and management strategies across medical specialities. Optimal patient care can be achieved by (1) establishing a unified knowledge foundation and (2) fostering multi-specialty collaborative guidelines. The emergent Neuro-Vascular Team concept, mirroring the multi-disciplinary Heart Team, embraces diverse specializations, tailores personalized, stratified medicine approaches to individual patient needs, and integrates innovative imaging and risk-assessment biomarkers. Proposed approach integrates collaboration of multiple specialists central to carotid artery stenosis management such as neurology, stroke medicine, cardiology, angiology, ophthalmology, vascular surgery, endovascular interventions, neuroradiology and neurosurgery. Moreover, patient education regarding current treatment options, their risks and advantages, is pivotal, promting patient's active role in clinical care decisions. This enables optimization of interventions ranging from lifestyle modification, carotid revascularization by stenting or endarterectomy, as well as pharmacological management encompassing statins, novel lipid-lowering and antithrombotic strategies and targeting inflammation and vascular dysfunction. This consensus document provides a harmonized multi-specialty approach to multimorbidity prevention in carotid stenosis patients, based on comprehensive knowledge review, pinpointing research gaps in an evidence-based medicine approach. It aims to be a foundational tool for interdisciplinary collaboration and prioritized patient-centric decision-making.</p

Global impact of the first coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic wave on vascular services

This online structured survey has demonstrated the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on vascular services. The majority of centres have documented marked reductions in operating and services provided to vascular patients. In the months during recovery from the resource restrictions imposed during the pandemic peaks, there will be a significant vascular disease burden awaiting surgeons. One of the most affected specialtie

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2) : a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

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. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86-1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91-1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable