Hyperparathyroidism and Peripheral Arterial Disease.

Primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) is presented in various forms, including classic PHPT, characterised by increased parathyroid hormone (PTH) secretion, normohormonal PHPT, and normocalcaemic PHPT. Secondary hyperparathyroidism is characterised by increased PTH secretion triggered by factors such as vitamin D deficiency and kidney failure. This review aims to discuss the involvement of hyperparathyroidism (HPT) in atherosclerosis, including peripheral arterial disease (PAD). The increased level of PTH is involved in developing subclinical and overt vascular diseases, encompassing endothelial dysfunction, vascular stiffness, hypertension, and coronary and peripheral arterial diseases. It has been consistently associated with an augmented risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, independent of classical risk factors for atherosclerosis. Chronic hypercalcemia associated with increased levels of PTH contributes to the development of calcification of vessel walls and atherosclerotic plaques. Vascular calcification can occur in the intima or media of the arterial wall and is associated with stiffness of peripheral arteries, which the formation of atherosclerotic plaques and narrowing of the vessel lumen can follow. For treating hyperparathyroidism, particularly SHPT, calcimimetics, novel phosphorus binders and novel vitamin D receptor activators are used. However, they are ineffective in severe PHPT. Therefore, parathyroidectomy remains the primary therapeutic option of PHPT.

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.

The Effect of Menopause and Menopausal Hormone Therapy on the Risk of Peripheral Artery Disease.

Peripheral artery disease (PAD), defined as lower extremity arterial disease, constitutes an underestimated aspect of the menopause-associated risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Accumulation of ASCVD risk factors, such as atherogenic dyslipidaemia, diabetes, and arterial hypertension, after the transition to menopause may contribute to atherosclerotic plaque formation in peripheral arteries. However, inconsistency exists among studies as to whether transition to menopause increases the risk of PAD, although early menopause (<45 years) or premature ovarian insufficiency may accelerate peripheral atherosclerotic plaque formation. Menopausal hormone therapy may decrease the risk of PAD if administered early (i.e., within the first 5-6 years after last menstruation), whereas it has no effect in women with established ASCVD.

From varicose veins to venous thromboembolic events.

Varicose veins (VVs) mostly represent benign disease. However, in some cases, they can lead to serious complications including deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Besides deteriorated blood flow caused by VVs inflammation is most probably a common denominator of VVs and DVT, which promotes a procoagulant state and thrombus formation also in deep veins. Patients with VVs have increased levels of interleukins, the most specific inflammatory markers of vascular wall inflammation that promote coagulation. The studies showed that VVs may increase the risk for DVT. However, the evidence of the risk and incidence of DVT in patients with VVs and without additional risk factors is poor. The increased risk is associated with previous venous thromboembolism (VTE), malignancy, estrogen use, pregnancy and postpartum, hospitalization in the last 6 months, age, and obesity. Varicose veins represent also an increased risk for VTE during long-term immobilization and long air travel or road trip. Further, superficial venous thrombosis is related to an increased risk for DVT, particularly if the thrombus in the superficial vein extends close to the saphenofemoral or femoropopliteal junction. Increased risk for DVT is increased during and after invasive treatment of VVs. Thromboprophylaxis after invasive procedures is recommended in subjects older than 60 years and those with another thrombophilic state.

Delayed versus primary sternal closure for left ventricular assist device implantation: Impact on mechanical circulatory support infections.

BACKGROUND: Delayed sternal closure may be required after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation due to coagulopathy or hemodynamic instability. There is conflicting data regarding infection risk. METHODS: We performed a single-center, retrospective analysis of patients who received their first LVAD between May 2012 and January 2021. Patients were divided into delayed sternal closure (DSC) and primary sternal closure (PSC) groups. We used chi-squared or Fisher Exact tests, as appropriate, to compare the incidence of postoperative LVAD-related infections (mediastinal/sternal wound) and LVAD-specific infections (driveline and pump pocket) after definitive chest closure between these two groups. RESULTS: A total of 327 patients met eligibility criteria, including 127 (39%) patients that underwent DSC and 200 (61%) patients that had a PSC. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar except for an overrepresentation of men (87% vs. 75%, p = .016), Interagency Registry of Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support class I-II patients (89% vs 66%, p < .001), patients with a previous sternotomy (43% vs 13%, p < .001), and patients with chronic kidney disease (55% vs 43%, p = .030) in the DSC group. The median DSC time was 24 (IQR: 24-48) hours. The incidence of LVAD-related mediastinal/sternal wound infection was similar between the DSC and PSC groups (4.7% vs 3.0%, p = .419). There was no difference between DSC and PSC groups in the incidence of driveline infection (6.3% vs 9%, p = .411) and pump pocket infection (1.6% vs 1.5%, p =.901), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: DSC does not seem to increase the incidence of LVAD-related or LVAD-specific infection rates in heart failure patients undergoing device implantation surgery.

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.

Concomitant tricuspid valve repair in left ventricular assist device implantation may increase the risk for temporary right ventricular support but does not impact overall outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Tricuspid valve repair in left ventricular assist device implantation continues to pose a challenge and may impact the occurrence of early and late right heart failure. We investigated the effects of concomitant tricuspid repair on clinical outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective, multicentre study enrolled adult patients who received continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices between 2005 and 2017 and compared those who received concomitant tricuspid valve repair to those who did not. Primary outcomes were early right heart failure necessitating temporary ventricular assist devices and right heart failure-related rehospitalizations requiring inotropic or diuretic treatment. RESULTS: Out of 526 patients who underwent left ventricular assist device implantation, 110 (21%) received a concomitant tricuspid valve repair. Those patients were sicker, and most had moderate or severe tricuspid regurgitation. A significantly higher incidence of temporary right ventricular assist devices was observed in the group with concomitant tricupid valve repair (18% vs. 11%, P = 0.049), with a significantly elevated risk for temporary right heart assist device (sHR 1.68, 95% CI 1.04-2.72; P = 0.037). After adjusting for confounders, no significant differences were found in the incidence of and risk for most clinical outcomes, including right heart failure-related rehospitalizations (P = 0.891) and death (P = 0.563). CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant tricuspid valve repair, when deemed necessary in left ventricular assist device implantation, may increase the risk of early right heart failure requiring a temporary right ventricular assist device but does not impact the incidence or risk of death or rehospitalizations due to late right heart failure.

Clinicopathological correlations in heart transplantation recipients complicated by death or re-transplantation.

Purpose: This study aimed to identify and correlate pathological findings with clinical outcomes in patients after orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) who either died or underwent a re-transplantation. Methodology and study design: Single-center retrospective analysis of primary OHT patients who died or were re-transplanted between October 2012 and July 2021. Clinical data were matched with corresponding pathological findings from endomyocardial biopsies on antibody-mediated rejection, cellular rejection, and cardiac allograft vasculopathy. Re-assessment of available tissue samples was performed to investigate acute myocardial injury (AMI) as a distinct phenomenon. These were correlated with clinical outcomes, which included severe primary graft dysfunction. Patients were grouped according to the presence of AMI and compared. Results: We identified 47 patients with truncated outcomes after the first OHT. The median age was 59 years, 36 patients (76%) were male, 25 patients (53%) had a prior history of cardiac operation, and 21 patients (45%) were supported with a durable assist device before OHT. Of those, AMI was identified in 22 (47%) patients (AMI group), and 25 patients had no AMI (non-AMI group). Groups were comparable in baseline and perioperative data. Histopathological observations in AMI group included a non-significant higher incidence of antibody-mediated rejection Grade 1 or higher (pAMR ≥ 1) (32% vs. 12%, P = 0.154), and non-significant lower incidence of severe acute cellular rejection (ACR ≥ 2R) (32% vs. 40%, P = 0.762). Clinical observations in the AMI group found a significantly higher occurrence of severe primary graft dysfunction (68% vs. 20%, P = 0.001) and a highly significant shorter duration from transplantation to death or re-transplantation (42 days [IQR 26, 120] vs. 1,133 days [711-1,664], P < 0.0001). Those patients had a significantly higher occurrence of cardiac-related deaths (64% vs. 24%, P = 0.020). No difference was observed in other outcomes. Conclusion: In heart transplant recipients with a truncated postoperative course leading to either death or re-transplantation, AMI in endomyocardial biopsies was a common pathological phenomenon, which correlated with the clinical occurrence of severe primary graft dysfunction. Those patients had significantly shorter survival times and higher cardiac-related deaths. The presence of AMI suggests a truncated course after OHT.

Optimal periprocedural antithrombotic treatment in carotid interventions: An international, multispecialty, expert review and position statement.

BACKGROUND: The optimal antithrombotic (antiplatelet or anticoagulant) treatment of patients undergoing extracranial carotid artery interventions is a subject of debate. The aim of this multidisciplinary document was to critically review the recommendations of current guidelines, taking into consideration the results of recently published studies. METHODS: The various antithrombotic strategies reported were evaluated for asymptomatic and symptomatic patients undergoing extracranial carotid artery interventions (endarterectomy, transfemoral carotid artery stenting [CAS] or transcarotid artery revascularization [TCAR]). Based on a critical review, a series of recommendations were formulated by an international expert panel. RESULTS: For asymptomatic patients, we recommend low-dose aspirin (75-100 mg/day) or clopidogrel (75 mg/day) with the primary goal to reduce the risk of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular event rates rather than to reduce the risk of stroke. For symptomatic patients, we recommend dual antiplatelet treatment (DAPT) initiated within 24 h of the index event to reduce the risk of recurrent events. We suggest that following transfemoral CAS or TCAR, patients continue DAPT for 1 month after which a single antiplatelet agent is used. High level of evidence to support anticoagulant treatment for patients with carotid artery disease is lacking. CONCLUSIONS: The antithrombotic treatment offered to carotid patients should be individualized, taking into account the presence of symptoms, the type of intervention and the goal of the treatment. The duration and type of DAPT (ticagrelor instead of clopidogrel) should be evaluated in future trials.

Benefits and drawbacks of statins and non-statin lipid lowering agents in carotid artery disease.

International guidelines strongly recommend statins alone or in combination with other lipid-lowering agents to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels for patients with asymptomatic/symptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS/SCS). Lowering LDL-C levels is associated with significant reductions in transient ischemic attack, stroke, cardiovascular (CV) event and death rates. The aim of this multi-disciplinary overview is to summarize the benefits and risks associated with lowering LDL-C with statins or non-statin medications for Asx/SCS patients. The cerebrovascular and CV beneficial effects associated with statins, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors and other non-statin lipid-lowering agents (e.g. fibrates, ezetimibe) are reviewed. The use of statins and PCSK9 inhibitors is associated with several beneficial effects for Asx/SCS patients, including carotid plaque stabilization and reduction of stroke rates. Ezetimibe and fibrates are associated with smaller reductions in stroke rates. The side-effects resulting from statin and PCSK9 inhibitor use are also highlighted. The benefits associated with lowering LDL-C with statins or non-statin lipid lowering agents (e.g. PCSK9 inhibitors) outweigh the risks and potential side-effects. Irrespective of their LDL-C levels, all Asx/SCS patients should receive high-dose statin treatment±ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors for reduction not only of LDL-C levels, but also of stroke, cardiovascular mortality and coronary event rates.

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.

Optimal Management of Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis in 2021: The Jury is Still Out. An International, Multispecialty, Expert Review and Position Statement.

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.

Optimal management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis in 2021: the jury is still out. An international, multispecialty, expert review and position statement.

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 was to reconcile the conflicting views on the topic. A literature review was performed with a focus on data from recent studies. 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. 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.