European Stroke Organisation (ESO) Guidelines on Management of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms

Unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIA) occur in around 3% of the population. Important management questions concern if and how to perform preventive UIA occlusion; if, how and when to perform follow up imaging and non-interventional means to reduce the risk of rupture. Using the Standard Operational Procedure of ESO we prepared guidelines according to GRADE methodology. Since no completed randomised trials exist, we used interim analyses of trials, and meta-analyses of observational and case-control studies to provide recommendations to guide UIA management. All recommendations were based on very low evidence. We suggest preventive occlusion if the estimated 5-year rupture risk exceeds the risk of preventive treatment. In general, we cannot recommend endovascular over microsurgical treatment, but suggest flow diverting stents as option only when there are no other low-risk options for UIA repair. To detect UIA recurrence we suggest radiological follow up after occlusion. In patients who are initially observed, we suggest radiological monitoring to detect future UIA growth, smoking cessation, treatment of hypertension, but not treatment with statins or acetylsalicylic acid with the indication to reduce the risk of aneurysm rupture. Additionally, we formulated 15 expert-consensus statements. All experts suggest to assess UIA patients within a multidisciplinary setting (neurosurgery, neuroradiology and neurology) at centres consulting >100 UIA patients per year, to use a shared decision-making process based on the team recommendation and patient preferences, and to repair UIA only in centres performing the proposed treatment in >30 patients with (ruptured or unruptured) aneurysms per year per neurosurgeon or neurointerventionalist. These UIA guidelines provide contemporary recommendations and consensus statement on important aspects of UIA management until more robust data come available.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Outcomes of patients after successful left ventricular assist device explantation: a EUROMACS study

Aims: Sufficient myocardial recovery with the subsequent explantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) occurs in approximately 1–2% of the cases. However, follow-up data about this condition are scarcely available in the literature. This study aimed to report the long-term outcomes and clinical management following LVAD explantation. Methods and results: An analysis of the European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support was performed to identify all adult patients with myocardial recovery and successful explantation. Pre-implant characteristics were retrieved and compared with the non-recovery patients. The follow-up data after explantation were collected via a questionnaire. A Kaplan–Meier analysis for freedom of the composite endpoint of death, heart transplantation, LVAD reimplantion, or heart failure (HF) relapse was conducted. A total of 45 (1.4%) cases with myocardial recovery resulting in successful LVAD explantation were identified. Compared with those who did not experience myocardial recovery, the explanted patients were younger (44 vs. 56 years, P < 0.001), had a shorter duration of cardiac disease (P < 0.001), and were less likely to have ischaemic cardiomyopathy (9% vs. 41.8%, P < 0.001). Follow-up after explantation could be acquired in 28 (62%) cases. The median age at LVAD implantation was 43 years (inter-quartile range: 29–52),

Neurosurgeons and the fight with COVID-19: a position statement from the EANS Individual Membership Committee

Scientific Assessment and Innovation in Neurosurgical Treatment Strategie

2019 EACTS Expert Consensus on long-term mechanical circulatory support

Long-term mechanical circulatory support (LT-MCS) is an important treatment modality for patients with severe heart failure. Different devices are available, and many-sometimes contradictory-observations regarding patient selection, surgical techniques, perioperative management and follow-up have been published. With the growing expertise in this field, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) recognized a need for a structured multidisciplinary consensus about the approach to patients with LT-MCS. However, the evidence published so far is insufficient to allow for generation of meaningful guidelines complying with EACTS requirements. Instead, the EACTS presents an expert opinion in the LT-MCS field. This expert opinion addresses patient evaluation and preoperative optimization as well as management of cardiac and non-cardiac comorbidities. Further, extensive operative implantation techniques are summarized and evaluated by leading experts, depending on both patient characteristics and device selection. The faculty recognized that postoperative management is multidisciplinary and includes aspects of intensive care unit stay, rehabilitation, ambulatory care, myocardial recovery and end-of-life care and mirrored this fact in this paper. Additionally, the opinions of experts on diagnosis and management of adverse events including bleeding, cerebrovascular accidents and device malfunction are presented. In this expert consensus, the evidence for the complete management from patient selection to end-of-life care is carefully reviewed with the aim of guiding clinicians in optimizing management of patients considered for or supported by an LT-MCS device

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. Funding: UK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme

ICAR: endoscopic skull‐base surgery

n/