Morphological Changes of the Ovarian Vein in Pelvic Venous Disorders.

OBJECTIVE: The management of pelvic venous disorders (PeVD) remains controversial. Open surgical and endovascular methods are currently used for treatment, but there are few data in the literature on the morphology and histology of the ectatic ovarian vein (OV). This study aimed to explore the histomorphological changes in a dilated OV in patients with PeVD and compare it with a normal OV obtained post-mortem and a normal great saphenous vein (GSV). METHODS: Histology of the OV was studied in 16 patients who underwent surgery for PeVD, 10 control cadavers from whom fragments of the OV without visible gross changes were taken at autopsy, and nine control patients in whom the GSV was resected to be used for coronary artery bypass. RESULTS: The OV wall in patients with PeVD consisted of three layers: intima, media, and adventitia. The OV looked very similar to the GSV wall because of a clearly developed layer of smooth muscle fibres. The thickness of the normal OV was significantly different to the OV wall in PeVD (475.3 µm, IQR 370.7, 607.6 vs. 776.3 µm, IQR 668.9, 879.6, p < .001) and did not differ significantly from the thickness of a normal GSV wall (784.3 µm, IQR 722.2, 898.2). The intima-media complex of the OV was significantly thinner than the GSV in PeVD (118.9 µm, IQR 75.6, 159.6 vs. 415 µm, IQR 399.5, 520.0, р < .001); however, the adventitia of the OV was significantly thicker than in normal OV and GSV (599.6 µm, IQR 444.3, 749.7 vs. 373.5 µm, IQR 323.8, 482.0 vs. 308.4 µm, IQR 275.9, 338.2, p < .001). CONCLUSION: Dilatation of the OV in patients with PeVD was accompanied by a significant increase in the overall thickness of the vein wall, which brings it closer in structure to the GSV. This implies that the OV may be used safely for transposition into the inferior vena cava or iliac vein.

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.

Why do guidelines recommend screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms, but not for asymptomatic carotid stenosis? A plea for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines do not recommend screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (AsxCS). The rationale behind this recommendation is that detection of AsxCS may lead to an unnecessary carotid intervention. In contrast, screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms is strongly recommended. METHODS: A critical analysis of the literature was performed to evaluate the implications of detecting AsxCS. RESULTS: Patients with AsxCS are at high risk for future stroke, myocardial infarction and vascular death. Population-wide screening for AsxCS should not be recommended. Additionally, screening of high-risk individuals for AsxCS with the purpose of identifying candidates for a carotid intervention is inappropriate. Instead, selective screening for AsxCS should be considered and should be viewed as an opportunity to identify individuals at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and future cardiovascular events for the timely initiation of intensive medical therapy and risk factor modification. CONCLUSIONS: Although mass screening should not be recommended, there are several arguments suggesting that selective screening for AsxCS should be considered. The rationale supporting such selective screening is to optimize risk factor control and to initiate intensive medical therapy for prevention of future cardiovascular events, rather than to identify candidates for an intervention.

Comparison of Recent Practice Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis.

Despite the publication of several national/international guidelines, the optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) remains controversial. This article compares 3 recently released guidelines (the 2020 German-Austrian, the 2021 European Stroke Organization [ESO], and the 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery [SVS] guidelines) vs the 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) guidelines regarding the optimal management of AsxCS patients.The 2017 ESVS guidelines defined specific imaging/clinical parameters that may identify patient subgroups at high future stroke risk and recommended that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) should or carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be considered for these individuals. The 2020 German-Austrian guidelines provided similar recommendations with the 2017 ESVS Guidelines. The 2021 ESO Guidelines also recommended CEA for AsxCS patients at high risk for stroke on best medical treatment (BMT), but recommended against routine use of CAS in these patients. Finally, the SVS guidelines provided a strong recommendation for CEA+BMT vs BMT alone for low-surgical risk patients with >70% AsxCS. Thus, the ESVS, German-Austrian, and ESO guidelines concurred that all AsxCS patients should receive risk factor modification and BMT, but CEA should or CAS may also be considered for certain AsxCS patient subgroups at high risk for future ipsilateral ischemic stroke.