Mid-term follow-up of staged bilateral internal carotid artery aneurysm treatment with Pipeline embolization

Background: Endovascular treatment of large complex morphology aneurysms is challenging. High recanalization rates have been reported with techniques such as stent-assisted coiling and balloon-assisted coiling. Flow diverter devices have been introduced to improve efficacy outcomes and recanalization rates. Thromboembolic complications and in-device stenosis are certainly more worrisome when treatment of bilateral internal carotid arteries has been performed. This study aimed to report our experience with mid-term imaging follow-up of staged bilateral Pipeline embolization device placement for the treatment of bilateral internal carotid artery aneurysms. Methods: We reviewed the clinical, angiographic, and follow-up imaging data in all consecutive patients treated with bilateral internal carotid artery aneurysms who underwent elective Pipeline embolization. Results: Six female patients were treated, harboring a total of 13 aneurysms. Of these, 60% were asymptomatic. Diplopia and headache were the most common symptoms. The most common location was the paraclinoid segment (6/13), including by cavernous segment (4/13) and ophthalmic segment (2/13). Successful delivery of the device was achieved in 12 cases. Difficult distal access precluded the deployment of the device in one case. The treatment was always staged with at least eight weeks' difference between the two procedures. All aneurysm necks were covered completely. There were no periprocedural complications. Angiographic follow-up ranged between 3 and 12 months, and computed tomography angiogram follow-up ranged between 2 and 24 months. Complete aneurysm occlusion was achieved in all cases. Conclusion: In our series, Pipeline deployment for the treatment of bilateral internal carotid artery aneurysms in a staged fashion is safe and feasible. Mid-term imaging follow-up showed permanent occlusion of all the treated aneurysms

A simple automated method for continuous fieldwise measurement of microvascular hemodynamics

Microvascular perfusion dynamics are vital to physiological function and are frequently dysregulated in injury and disease. Typically studies measure microvascular flow in a few selected vascular segments over limited time, failing to capture spatial and temporal variability. To quantify microvascular flow in a more complete and unbiased way we developed STAFF (Spatial Temporal Analysis of Fieldwise Flow), a macro for FIJI open-source image analysis software. Using high-speed microvascular flow movies, STAFF generates kymographs for every time interval for every vascular segment, calculates flow velocities from red blood cell shadow angles, and outputs the data as color-coded velocity map movies and spreadsheets. In untreated mice, analyses demonstrated profound variation even between adjacent sinusoids over seconds. In acetaminophen-treated mice we detected flow reduction localized to pericentral regions. STAFF is a powerful new tool capable of providing novel insights by enabling measurement of the complex spatiotemporal dynamics of microvascular flow

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health