Preliminary Analysis of the Effects of Ad26.COV2.S Vaccination on CT Findings and High Intensive Care Admission Rates of COVID-19 Patients

On 27 February 2021, the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) authorized the administration of the adenovirus-based Ad26.COV2-S vaccine (J&J-Janssen) for the prevention of COVID-19, a viral pandemic that, to date, has killed more than 5.5 million people. Performed during the early phase of the COVID-19 4th wave, this retrospective observational study aims to report the computerized tomography (CT) findings and intensive care unit admission rates of Ad26.COV2-S-vaccinated vs. unvaccinated COVID-19 patients. From the 1st to the 23rd of December 2021, all confirmed COVID-19 patients that had been subjected to chest non-contrast CT scan analysis were enrolled in the study. These were divided into Ad26.COV2.S-vaccinated (group 1) and unvaccinated patients (group 2). The RSNA severity score was calculated for each patient and correlated to CT findings and type of admission to a healthcare setting after CT-i.e., home care, ordinary hospitalization, sub-intensive care, and intensive care. Descriptive and inference statistical analyses were performed by comparing the data from the two groups. Data from a total of 71 patients were collected: 10 patients in group 1 (4M, 6F, mean age 63.5 years, SD ± 4.2) and 61 patients in group 2 (32M, 29F, mean age 64.7 years, SD ± 3.7). Statistical analysis showed lower values of RSNA severity in group 1 compared to group 2 (mean value 14.1 vs. 15.7, p = 0.009, respectively). Furthermore, vaccinated patients were less frequently admitted to both sub-intensive and high-intensive care units than group 2, with an odds ratio of 0.45 [95%CI (0.01; 3.92)]. Ad26.COV2.S vaccination protects from severe COVID-19 based on CT severity scores. As a result, Ad26.COV2.S-vaccinated COVID-19 patients are more frequently admitted to home in comparison with unvaccinated patients

Multimodality Imaging of the Neglected Valve: Role of Echocardiography, Cardiac Magnetic Resonance and Cardiac Computed Tomography in Pulmonary Stenosis and Regurgitation

The pulmonary valve (PV) is the least imaged among the heart valves. However, pulmonary regurgitation (PR) and pulmonary stenosis (PS) can occur in a variety of patients ranging from fetuses, newborns (e.g., tetralogy of Fallot) to adults (e.g., endocarditis, carcinoid syndrome, complications of operated tetralogy of Fallot). Due to their complexity, PR and PS are studied using multimodality imaging to assess their mechanism, severity, and hemodynamic consequences. Multimodality imaging is crucial to plan the correct management and to follow up patients with pulmonary valvulopathy. Echocardiography remains the first line methodology to assess patients with PR and PS, but the information obtained with this technique are often integrated with cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and computed tomography (CT). This state-of-the-art review aims to provide an updated overview of the usefulness, strengths, and limits of multimodality imaging in patients with PR and PS

The Non-Invasive Diagnosis of Chronic Coronary Syndrome: A Focus on Stress Computed Tomography Perfusion and Stress Cardiac Magnetic Resonance

Coronary artery disease is still a major cause of death and morbidity worldwide. In the setting of chronic coronary disease, demonstration of inducible ischemia is mandatory to address treatment. Consequently, scientific and technological efforts were made in response to the request for non-invasive diagnostic tools with better sensitivity and specificity. To date, clinicians have at their disposal a wide range of stress-imaging techniques. Among others, stress cardiac magnetic resonance (S-CMR) and computed tomography perfusion (CTP) techniques both demonstrated their diagnostic efficacy and prognostic value in clinical trials when compared to other non-invasive ischemia-assessing techniques and invasive fractional flow reserve measurement techniques. Standardized protocols for both S-CMR and CTP usually imply the administration of vasodilator agents to induce hyperemia and contrast agents to depict perfusion defects. However, both methods have their own limitations, meaning that optimizing their performance still requires a patient-tailored approach. This review focuses on the characteristics, drawbacks, and future perspectives of these two techniques

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