Position statement from the Indian Society of Gastroenterology, Cardiological Society of India, Indian Academy of Neurology and Vascular Society of India on gastrointestinal bleeding and endoscopic procedures in patients on antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant therapy.

Antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant agents (collectively known as antithrombotic agents) are used to reduce the risk of thromboembolic events in patients with conditions such as atrial fibrillation, acute coronary syndrome, recurrent stroke prevention, deep vein thrombosis, hypercoagulable states and endoprostheses. Antithrombotic-associated gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is an increasing burden due to the growing population of advanced age with multiple comorbidities and the expanding indications for the use of antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants. GI bleeding in antithrombotic users is associated with an increase in short-term and long-term mortality. In addition, in recent decades, there has been an exponential increase in the use of diagnostic and therapeutic GI endoscopic procedures. Since endoscopic procedures hold an inherent risk of bleeding that depends on the type of endoscopy and patients' comorbidities, in patients already on antithrombotic therapies, the risk of procedure-related bleeding is further increased. Interrupting or modifying doses of these agents prior to any invasive procedures put these patients at increased risk of thromboembolic events. Although many international GI societies have published guidelines for the management of antithrombotic agents during an event of GI bleeding and during urgent and elective endoscopic procedures, no Indian guidelines exist that cater to Indian gastroenterologists and their patients. In this regard, the Indian Society of Gastroenterology (ISG), in association with the Cardiological Society of India (CSI), Indian Academy of Neurology (IAN) and Vascular Society of India (VSI), have developed a "Guidance Document" for the management of antithrombotic agents during an event of GI bleeding and during urgent and elective endoscopic procedures.

Decompressive surgery in cerebral venous sinus thrombosis due to vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis due to vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (CVST-VITT) is an adverse drug reaction occurring after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination. CVST-VITT patients often present with large intracerebral haemorrhages and a high proportion undergoes decompressive surgery. Clinical characteristics, therapeutic management and outcomes of CVST-VITT patients who underwent decompressive surgery are described and predictors of in-hospital mortality in these patients are explored. METHODS: Data from an ongoing international registry of patients who developed CVST within 28 days of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, reported between 29 March 2021 and 10 May 2022, were used. Definite, probable and possible VITT cases, as defined by Pavord et al. (N Engl J Med 2021; 385: 1680-1689), were included. RESULTS: Decompressive surgery was performed in 34/128 (27%) patients with CVST-VITT. In-hospital mortality was 22/34 (65%) in the surgical and 27/94 (29%) in the non-surgical group (p < 0.001). In all surgical cases, the cause of death was brain herniation. The highest mortality rates were found amongst patients with preoperative coma (17/18, 94% vs. 4/14, 29% in the non-comatose; p < 0.001) and bilaterally absent pupillary reflexes (7/7, 100% vs. 6/9, 67% with unilaterally reactive pupil, and 4/11, 36% with bilaterally reactive pupils; p = 0.023). Postoperative imaging revealed worsening of index haemorrhagic lesion in 19 (70%) patients and new haemorrhagic lesions in 16 (59%) patients. At a median follow-up of 6 months, 8/10 of surgical CVST-VITT who survived admission were functionally independent. CONCLUSIONS: Almost two-thirds of surgical CVST-VITT patients died during hospital admission. Preoperative coma and bilateral absence of pupillary responses were associated with higher mortality rates. Survivors often achieved functional independence.

Carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis: differences in patient profile in a Low-Middle Income Country.

INTRODUCTION: Carotid Endarterectomy (CEA) is the standard treatment for patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. Data from Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMIC) is sparse on CEA and its outcomes. We aimed to describe the profile of our patients, and factors associated with periprocedural cerebral ischemic events in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis who underwent CEA in our institute. METHODS: Retrospective review of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis(50-99%) who underwent CEA between January 2011 and December 2021 was done. Clinical and imaging parameters and their influence on periprocedural cerebral ischemic events were analysed. RESULTS: Of the 319 patients (77% males) with a mean age of 64 years (SD ±8.6), 207 (65%) presented only after a stroke. Majority (85%) had high grade stenosis (70%) of the symptomatic carotid. The mean time to CEA was 50 days (SD ±36), however only 26 patients (8.2%) underwent surgery within 2 weeks. Minor strokes and TIA occurred in 2.2%, while major strokes and death occurred in 4.1% patients. None of the clinical or imaging parameters predicted the periprocedural cerebral ischemic events. The presence of co-existing significant (50%) tandem intracranial atherosclerosis (n=77, 24%) or contralateral occlusion (n=24, 7.5%) did not influence the periprocedural stroke risk. CONCLUSION: There is a delay in patients undergoing CEA for symptomatic carotid stenosis. Majority have high grade stenosis and present late only after a stroke reflecting a lack of awareness. CEA can be performed safely even in patients with significant intracranial tandem stenosis and contralateral carotid occlusion.

Problems and pitfalls in developing countries.

Despite major challenges, in the last decade several epilepsy centers in the developing world have successfully implemented epilepsy surgery programs and produced results comparable to those from developed countries. If the program is to have a lasting impact, it would be essential to work with and educate the local professionals and public about the recent advances in the treatment of epilepsies. The epilepsy surgery centers in developing countries should initially restrict their surgical candidates to patients with mesial temporal lobe epilepsy and those with circumscribed potentially epileptogenic lesions in whom the epileptogenic zone can be unquestionably localized by using locally available relatively inexpensive and noninvasive technologies, and in whom an excellent postoperative outcome can be guaranteed. It is important for such epilepsy center to assess its capabilities and limitations regularly and adopt a stepwise progressive approach to increasing levels of complex presurgical evaluation and surgical treatment strategies.