An international, expert-based, Delphi consensus document on controversial issues in the management of abdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: As a result of conflicting, inadequate or controversial data in the literature, several issues concerning the management of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) remain unanswered. The aim of this international, expert-based Delphi consensus document was to provide some guidance for clinicians on these controversial topics. METHODS: A three-round Delphi consensus document was produced with 44 experts on 6 prespecified topics regarding the management of AAAs. All answers were provided anonymously. The response rate for each round was 100%. RESULTS: Most participants (42 of 44 [95.4%]) agreed that a minimum case volume per year is essential (or probably essential) for a center to offer open or endovascular AAA repair (EVAR). Furthermore, 33 of 44 (75.0%) believed that AAA screening programs are (probably) still clinically effective and cost effective. Additionally, most panelists (36 of 44 [81.9%]) voted that surveillance after EVAR should be (or should probably be) lifelong. Finally, 35 of 44 participants (79.7%) thought that women smokers should (or should probably/possibly) be considered for screening at 65 years of age, similar to men. No consensus was achieved regarding lowering the threshold for AAA repair and the need for deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis in patients undergoing EVAR. CONCLUSIONS: This expert-based Delphi consensus document provides guidance for clinicians regarding specific unresolved issues. Consensus could not be achieved on some topics, highlighting the need for further research in those areas.

Specificities of primary and secondary prevention of lower extremity artery disease: introduction to a series of reviews.

This article briefly discusses the risk factors for the development of lower extremity artery disease, namely smoking, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia/dyslipidemia and hypertension. Each of these risk factors will be discussed in detail in forthcoming articles of the journal.

Superficial temporal artery access for transfemoral or transbrachial carotid artery stenting in selected patients considered unfit for carotid surgery.

BACKGROUND: Transfemoral (TFCAS) or transbrachial carotid artery stenting (TBCAS) is an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for treatment of high-grade internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis. A difficult aortic arch (i.e., type III or bovine arch) and/or a tortuous/stenosed common carotid artery (CCA) are potential reasons for technical failure. This study explores the benefits of superficial temporal artery access (STAA) in aiding TFCAS or TBCAS for patients with challenging anatomical conditions. METHODS: Clinical data of patients who underwent TFCAS or TBCAS using STAA between January and November 2023 were prospectively collected. Demographics, comorbidities, clinical presentation, and imaging studies were reviewed. Primary outcomes included 30-day stroke/death and technical success. Secondary outcomes and causes of failures were assessed. RESULTS: Ten patients (mean age: 74 [range: 66-84] years) with difficult aortic arch (N.=2), CCA tortuosity (N.=2), proximal CCA stenosis (N.=2), previous technical TFCAS failure (N.=2) and aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD) (N.=2) underwent TFCAS or TBCAS supported by STAA. Successful STAA was possible in eight patients (six facilitated TFCAS and two TBCAS. after TBCAS occurred TIA). In two cases STAA was not successful. There were no deaths or strokes within 30 days, transient ischemic attack (TIA) occurred in one patient. Follow-up Duplex ultrasound confirmed occlusion of the STA in all patients, without clinical consequences. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study suggests that TFCAS/TBCAS supported by STAA is a viable and safe approach when traditional access methods are ineffective and transcarotid artery stenting in not available or not possible. Despite a 20% technical failure in the current series, this technique may be useful for challenging anatomy of the aortic arch, CCA stenosis and tortuosity, and AIOD. When feasible, STAA may be a promising adjunct to TFCAS/TBCAS.

Artificial intelligence for cardiovascular disease risk assessment in personalised framework: a scoping review.

Background: The field of precision medicine endeavors to transform the healthcare industry by advancing individualised strategies for diagnosis, treatment modalities, and predictive assessments. This is achieved by utilizing extensive multidimensional biological datasets encompassing diverse components, such as an individual's genetic makeup, functional attributes, and environmental influences. Artificial intelligence (AI) systems, namely machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL), have exhibited remarkable efficacy in predicting the potential occurrence of specific cancers and cardiovascular diseases (CVD). Methods: We conducted a comprehensive scoping review guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) framework. Our search strategy involved combining key terms related to CVD and AI using the Boolean operator AND. In August 2023, we conducted an extensive search across reputable scholarly databases including Google Scholar, PubMed, IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and arXiv to gather relevant academic literature on personalised medicine for CVD. Subsequently, in January 2024, we extended our search to include internet search engines such as Google and various CVD websites. These searches were further updated in March 2024. Additionally, we reviewed the reference lists of the final selected research articles to identify any additional relevant literature. Findings: A total of 2307 records were identified during the process of conducting the study, consisting of 564 entries from external sites like arXiv and 1743 records found through database searching. After 430 duplicate articles were eliminated, 1877 items that remained were screened for relevancy. In this stage, 1241 articles remained for additional review after 158 irrelevant articles and 478 articles with insufficient data were removed. 355 articles were eliminated for being inaccessible, 726 for being written in a language other than English, and 281 for not having undergone peer review. Consequently, 121 studies were deemed suitable for inclusion in the qualitative synthesis. At the intersection of CVD, AI, and precision medicine, we found important scientific findings in our scoping review. Intricate pattern extraction from large, complicated genetic datasets is a skill that AI algorithms excel at, allowing for accurate disease diagnosis and CVD risk prediction. Furthermore, these investigations have uncovered unique genetic biomarkers linked to CVD, providing insight into the workings of the disease and possible treatment avenues. The construction of more precise predictive models and personalised treatment plans based on the genetic profiles of individual patients has been made possible by the revolutionary advancement of CVD risk assessment through the integration of AI and genomics. Interpretation: The systematic methodology employed ensured the thorough examination of available literature and the inclusion of relevant studies, contributing to the robustness and reliability of the study's findings. Our analysis stresses a crucial point in terms of the adaptability and versatility of AI solutions. AI algorithms designed in non-CVD domains such as in oncology, often include ideas and tactics that might be modified to address cardiovascular problems. Funding: No funding received.

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

INTRODUCTION: 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.

Implications of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services decision to expand indications for carotid artery stenting.

OBJECTIVE: On October 11, 2023, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) expanded the indications for carotid artery stenting (CAS) to include patients with ≥50% symptomatic or ≥70% asymptomatic carotid stenosis. The aim of this article was to investigate the implications of this decision. METHODS: The reasons behind the increased coverage for CAS are analyzed and discussed, as well as the various Societies supporting or opposing the expansion of indications for CAS. RESULTS: The benefits associated with expanding CAS indications include providing an additional therapeutic option to patients and enabling individualization of treatment according to patient-specific characteristics. The drawbacks of expanding CAS indications include a possible bias in decision-making and an increase in inappropriate CAS procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The purpose of the CMS recommendation to expand indications for CAS is to improve the available therapeutic options for patients. Hopefully this decision will not be misinterpreted and will be used to improve patient options and patient outcomes.

An international, multispecialty, expert-based Delphi Consensus document on controversial issues in the management of patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the publication of various national/international guidelines, several questions concerning the management of patients with asymptomatic (AsxCS) and symptomatic (SxCS) carotid stenosis remain unanswered. The aim of this international, multi-specialty, expert-based Delphi Consensus document was to address these issues to help clinicians make decisions when guidelines are unclear. METHODS: Fourteen controversial topics were identified. A three-round Delphi Consensus process was performed including 61 experts. The aim of Round 1 was to investigate the differing views and opinions regarding these unresolved topics. In Round 2, clarifications were asked from each participant. In Round 3, the questionnaire was resent to all participants for their final vote. Consensus was reached when ≥75% of experts agreed on a specific response. RESULTS: Most experts agreed that: (1) the current periprocedural/in-hospital stroke/death thresholds for performing a carotid intervention should be lowered from 6% to 4% in patients with SxCS and from 3% to 2% in patients with AsxCS; (2) the time threshold for a patient being considered "recently symptomatic" should be reduced from the current definition of "6 months" to 3 months or less; (3) 80% to 99% AsxCS carries a higher risk of stroke compared with 60% to 79% AsxCS; (4) factors beyond the grade of stenosis and symptoms should be added to the indications for revascularization in AsxCS patients (eg, plaque features of vulnerability and silent infarctions on brain computed tomography scans); and (5) shunting should be used selectively, rather than always or never. Consensus could not be reached on the remaining topics due to conflicting, inadequate, or controversial evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The present international, multi-specialty expert-based Delphi Consensus document attempted to provide responses to several unanswered/unresolved issues. However, consensus could not be achieved on some topics, highlighting areas requiring future research.

Recent advances and controversial issues in the optimal management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) is enduringly controversial. We updated our 2021 Expert Review and Position Statement, focusing on recent advances in the diagnosis and management of patients with AsxCS. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed up to August 1, 2023, using PubMed/PubMed Central, EMBASE and Scopus. The following keywords were used in various combinations: "asymptomatic carotid stenosis," "carotid endarterectomy" (CEA), "carotid artery stenting" (CAS), and "transcarotid artery revascularization" (TCAR). Areas covered included (i) improvements in best medical treatment (BMT) for patients with AsxCS and declining stroke risk, (ii) technological advances in surgical/endovascular skills/techniques and outcomes, (iii) risk factors, clinical/imaging characteristics and risk prediction models for the identification of high-risk AsxCS patient subgroups, and (iv) the association between cognitive dysfunction and AsxCS. RESULTS: BMT is essential for all patients with AsxCS, regardless of whether they will eventually be offered CEA, CAS, or TCAR. Specific patient subgroups at high risk for stroke despite BMT should be considered for a carotid revascularization procedure. These patients include those with severe (≥80%) AsxCS, transcranial Doppler-detected microemboli, plaque echolucency on Duplex ultrasound examination, silent infarcts on brain computed tomography or magnetic resonance angiography scans, decreased cerebrovascular reserve, increased size of juxtaluminal hypoechoic area, AsxCS progression, carotid plaque ulceration, and intraplaque hemorrhage. Treatment of patients with AsxCS should be individualized, taking into consideration individual patient preferences and needs, clinical and imaging characteristics, and cultural, ethnic, and social factors. Solid evidence supporting or refuting an association between AsxCS and cognitive dysfunction is lacking. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal management of patients with AsxCS should include BMT for all individuals and a prophylactic carotid revascularization procedure (CEA, CAS, or TCAR) for some asymptomatic patient subgroups, additionally taking into consideration individual patient needs and preference, clinical and imaging characteristics, social and cultural factors, and the available stroke risk prediction models. Future studies should investigate the association between AsxCS with cognitive function and the role of carotid revascularization procedures in the progression or reversal of cognitive dysfunction.

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.