Carotid Phase-Contrast Magnetic Resonance before Treatment: 4D-Flow versus Standard 2D Imaging.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the level of agreement between flow/velocity data obtained from 2D-phase-contrast (PC) and 4D-flow in patients scheduled for treatment of carotid artery stenosis. Image acquisition was performed using a 1.5 T scanner. We compared mean flow rates, vessel areas, and peak velocities obtained during the acquisition with both techniques in 20 consecutive patients, 15 males and 5 females aged 69 ± 5 years (mean ± standard deviation). There was a good correlation between both techniques for the CCA flow (r = 0.65, p < 0.001), whereas for the ICA flow and ECA flow the correlation was only moderate (r = 0.4, p = 0.011 and r = 0.45, p = 0.003, respectively). Correlations of peak velocities between methods were good for CCA (r = 0.56, p < 0.001) and moderate for ECA (r = 0.41, p = 0.008). There was no correlation for ICA (r = 0.04, p = 0.805). Cross-sectional area values between methods showed no significant correlations for CCA (r = 0.18, p = 0.269), ICA (r = 0.1, p = 0.543), and ECA (r = 0.05, p = 0.767). Conclusion: the 4D-flow imaging provided a good correlation of CCA and a moderate correlation of ICA flow rates against 2D-PC, underestimating peak velocities and overestimating cross-sectional areas in all carotid segments.

Diagnostic performance of chest radiography in high COVID-19 prevalence setting: experience from a European reference hospital.

PURPOSE: The study's aim is to analyse the diagnostic performance of chest radiography (CXR) in patients with suspected coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). METHODS: We retrospectively considered 826 consecutive patients with suspected COVID-19 presenting to our emergency department (ED) from February 21 to March 31, 2020, in a high disease prevalence setting. We enrolled patients who underwent CXR and rhino-oropharyngeal swab for real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR). CXRs were evaluated by an expert radiologist; a second independent analysis was performed by two residents in consensus. All readers, blinded to rRT-PCR results, classified CXRs positive/negative depending on presence/absence of typical findings of COVID-19, using rRT-PCR as reference standard. RESULTS: We finally analysed 680 patients (median age 58); 547 (80%) tested positive for COVID-19. The diagnostic performance of CXR, interpreted by the expert reader, was as follows: sensitivity (79.0%; 95% CI: 75.3-82.3), specificity (81.2%; 95% CI: 73.5-87.5), PPV (94.5%;95% CI: 92.0-96.4), NPV (48.4%; 95% CI: 41.7-55.2), and accuracy (79.3%; 95% CI: 76.0-82.2). For the residents: sensitivity (75.1%; 95% CI: 71.2-78.7), specificity (57.9%; 95% CI: 49.9-66.4), PPV (88.0%; 95% CI: 84.7-90.8), NPV (36.2%; 95% CI: 29.7-43.0), and accuracy (71.6%; 95% CI: 68.1-75.0). We found a significant difference between the reporting sensitivity (p = 0.013) and specificity (p < 0.0001) of expert radiologist vs residents. CXR sensitivity was higher in patients with symptom onset > 5 days before ED presentation compared to ≤ 5 days (84.4% vs 70.7%). CONCLUSIONS: CXR showed a sensitivity of 79% and a specificity of 81% in diagnosing viral pneumonia in symptomatic patients with clinical suspicion of COVID-19. Further studies in lower prevalence settings are needed.

Role of Fusion Imaging in Image-Guided Thermal Ablations.

Thermal ablation (TA) procedures are effective treatments for several kinds of cancers. In the recent years, several medical imaging advancements have improved the use of image-guided TA. Imaging technique plays a pivotal role in improving the ablation success, maximizing pre-procedure planning efficacy, intraprocedural targeting, post-procedure monitoring and assessing the achieved result. Fusion imaging (FI) techniques allow for information integration of different imaging modalities, improving all the ablation procedure steps. FI concedes exploitation of all imaging modalities' strengths concurrently, eliminating or minimizing every single modality's weaknesses. Our work aims to give an overview of FI, explain and analyze FI technical aspects and its clinical applications in ablation therapy and interventional oncology.

Poor concordance between definitions of type III arch and implications for risk prediction and assessment for carotid artery stenting.

OBJECTIVE: The type III arch configuration has been inconsistently reported as a stroke risk factor during carotid artery stenting. However, at least three different methods for the definition of type III arch can be identified in the literature, related to the level of the origin of the innominate artery (IA). According to Casserly's definition, a type III arch presents with an origin of the IA below the horizontal plane of the inner curvature. According to Madhwal's definition, a type III arch has a distance greater than twice the diameter of the left common carotid artery between the highest point of the arch and the origin of the IA. According to MacDonald's definition, a type III arch presents with a distance of ≥2 cm between the highest point of the arch and the origin of the IA. Our aim was to assess the level of concordance between these different methods. METHODS: Anonymized thoracic computed tomography scans of 100 healthy patients were reviewed. Two of us independently stratified the selected cases as a type I to III arch, according to the three considered definitions. The interobserver level of concordance for each type III arch classification and level of concordance among the three definitions were assessed. RESULTS: The 100 selected patients (64% male) were 76 ± 7 years old. For each definition, the interobserver repeatability was almost perfect for all three (Madhwal, κ = 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.99; MacDonald, κ = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.92; Casserly, κ = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.93). The level of concordance among the different definitions was very low (Madhwal vs MacDonald, 85% [P = .002]; 33% for type III arch; Madhwal vs Casserly, 60% [P < .0001]; 12% for type III arch; MacDonald vs Casserly, 75% [P < .0001]; 12% for type III arch). CONCLUSIONS: The three definitions of the type III arch have a very low level of concordance, which might account for the varying clinical relevance of this configuration. Our findings have relevant implications for risk prediction for carotid artery stenting based on the presence of a type III arch, for comparisons of the results from different studies, and for comparisons of different datasets from multicenter trials.

Type III Arch Configuration as a Risk Factor for Carotid Artery Stenting: A Systematic Review of Contemporary Guidelines on Management of Carotid Artery Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Type III arch configuration is frequently reported as a stroke risk factor for carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS). We reviewed contemporary guidelines on management of carotid artery stenosis to assess the clinical relevance attributed to this anatomic feature in current clinical practice. METHODS: The study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. The PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify all guidelines on extracranial carotid disease published between January 2008 and March 2020. A total of 435 articles were screened. For multiple guidelines from the same writing group, only the most recent updated version was considered. Eighteen documents were identified for qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Four guidelines specifically reported type III arch as a predictive factor of periprocedural complications after CAS. Two of them also provided a low level of evidence of their recommendation. None of the documents indicated the exact criteria for aortic arch classification. Three different methods to describe type III arch configuration were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Type III arch configuration is inconsistently included among stroke risk factors for CAS in contemporary guidelines, and variably defined. Further studies on the level of concordance between the 3 existing definition criteria are warranted.

Endovascular repair of delayed giant iliac pseudoaneurysm following simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation with preserved allografts function.

We present a case of endovascular repair of a giant iliac artery pseudoaneurysm following simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation. A 64-year-old female presented to the emergency room with right flank pain 10 months after kidney and pancreas transplantation on the right iliac axis. Investigations revealed a 9.5 cm pseudoaneurysm originating from the anastomosis between the graft renal artery and the external iliac artery. The pseudoaneurysm was successfully excluded emergently with a covered stent graft preserving the normal perfusion and function of both transplanted organs. Endovascular repair may be a good and low-invasive option in selected patients with transplant renal artery pseudoaneurysm.

The Modified Arch Landing Areas Nomenclature identifies hostile zones for endograft deployment: a confirmatory biomechanical study in patients treated by thoracic endovascular aortic repair†.

OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to confirm whether the Modified Arch Landing Areas Nomenclature (MALAN) for thoracic endovascular aortic repair, in which each landing area is described by indicating both the proximal landing zone (PLZ) and the type of arch (e.g. 0/I), identifies unfavourable landing zones for endograft deployment in diseased aortas. METHODS: Preoperative computed tomography angiography scans of 10 patients scheduled for thoracic endovascular aortic repair for aneurysm or penetrating ulcer of the arch and with a potential hostile PLZ were reviewed. Five had proximal deployment planned in MALAN area 3/III and 5, in MALAN area 2/III. The angulation of each PLZ was calculated. Computational fluid dynamics modelling was used to compute magnitude and orientation of pulsatile displacement forces in each PLZ. Normalized values based on PLZ areas (i.e. equivalent surface traction) were calculated. Results were compared to those obtained in healthy controls stratified by the MALAN. RESULTS: Angulation was severe (>60°) in MALAN areas 3/III and 2/III, which was consistent with the findings obtained in healthy controls. Increased magnitude (P = 0.021) and unfavourable orientation (i.e. orthogonal to the longitudinal aortic axis) of equivalent surface traction (P = 0.011) was also found in these areas compared to the adjacent ones, following the same pattern seen in the controls. Adverse events related to proximal endograft performance were reported in 3/10 cases. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms in diseased aortas initial proof-of-concept findings on the predictive value of the MALAN to identify landing areas with a geometric and haemodynamic environment hostile for thoracic endovascular aortic repair. These adverse biomechanical features may entail an increased risk of dismal endograft performance.

Temporary Transvenous Pacemaker Implantation during Carotid Endarterectomy in Patients with Trifascicular Block.

BACKGROUND: The risk of severe perioperative bradyarrhythmias in patients with chronic left bundle branch, or bifascicular block, and an additional first-degree atrioventricular block undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has never been specifically addressed. In this study, we aimed to investigate whether these conduction abnormalities entail an increased risk of hemodynamic compromise during CEA and the role of temporary transvenous pacemaker (TTVPM) implantation as a prophylactic measure in this subgroup of patients. METHODS: Between June 2006 and June 2013, 37 CEAs were performed in 31 patients (29 men, mean age 76 ± 6 years), in whom a TTVPM was implanted for a trifascicular block. Thirty-seven concurrent, consecutive patients operated for other vascular pathologies also with a prophylactic TTVPM for an asymptomatic trifascicular block served as controls. Adverse events were considered: pacemaker activation, block progression, bradycardia ≤40 beats/min, and asystole. RESULTS: Study and control groups were overall comparable. No perioperative mortality was recorded. All patients undergoing CEA were asymptomatic for syncope preoperatively. Among them, in 34 cases, indication for TTVPM was based on preoperative EKG, and in 4, a pacemaker activation was recorded. Three additional patients were also included in the study group in whom TTVPM was implanted due to the occurrence of adverse advents, and not prophylactically. In 2 of these, severe bradycardia with eventual asystole occurred intraoperatively. In both cases, the procedure was discontinued and rescheduled for the following day after a TTVPM was implanted. In the last additional case, the patient had a block progression on day 1 after an uneventful CEA and was emergently treated with a TTVPM. Overall, 7 adverse events were recorded in the study group, and none in the control group (P < 0.011). Morbidity in the CEA group also included 1 myocardial infarction, 1 minor stroke, 1 surgical revision for cervical hematoma, 1 new-onset atrial fibrillation, and 1 femoral artery pseudoaneurysm. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, TTVPM implantation was a clinically useful adjunct in patients with trifascicular block submitted to CEA, as compared with other vascular surgical procedures. However, the risks inherent to CEA in this subgroup of patients suggest that surgical treatment may not be warranted for those with asymptomatic carotid disease.