Search

Objectives: The recommendations of international guidelines for the management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) often vary considerably and extend from a conservative approach with risk factor modification and best medical treatment (BMT) alone, to a more aggressive approach with a carotid intervention plus BMT. The aim of the current multispecialty position statement is to reconcile the conflicting views on the topic. Materials and methods: A literature review was performed with a focus on data from recent studies. Results: Several clinical and imaging high-risk features have been identified that are associated with an increased long-term ipsilateral ischemic stroke risk in patients with ACS. Such high-risk clinical/imaging features include intraplaque hemorrhage, impaired cerebrovascular reserve, carotid plaque echolucency/ulceration/ neovascularization, a lipid-rich necrotic core, a thin or ruptured fibrous cap, silent brain infarction, a contralateral transient ischemic attack/stroke episode, male patients < 75 years and microembolic signals on transcranial Doppler. There is growing evidence that 80-99% ACS indicate a higher stroke risk than 50-79% stenoses. Conclusions: Although aggressive risk factor control and BMT should be implemented in all ACS patients, several high-risk features that may increase the risk of a future cerebrovascular event are now documented. Consequently, some guidelines recommend a prophylactic carotid intervention in high-risk patients to prevent future cerebrovascular events. Until the results of the much-anticipated randomized controlled trials emerge, the jury is still out regarding the optimal management of ACS patients. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic has resulted in diversion of healthcare resources to the management of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus. Elective interventions and surgical procedures in most countries have been postponed and operating room resources have been diverted to manage the pandemic. The Venous and Lymphatic Triage and Acuity Scale was developed to provide an international standard to rationalise and harmonise the management of patients with venous and lymphatic disorders or vascular anomalies. Triage urgency was determined based on clinical assessment of urgency with which a patient would require medical treatment or surgical intervention. Clinical conditions were classified into six categories of: (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE), (2) chronic venous disease, (3) vascular anomalies, (4) venous trauma, (5) venous compression and (6) lymphatic disease. Triage urgency was categorised into four groups and individual conditions were allocated to each class of triage. These included (1) medical emergencies (requiring immediate attendance), example massive pulmonary embolism; (2) urgent (to be seen as soon as possible), example deep vein thrombosis; (3) semi-urgent (to be attended to within 30–90 days), example highly symptomatic chronic venous disease, and (4) discretionary/non-urgent- (to be seen within 6–12 months), example chronic lymphoedema. Veno