Accuracy of duplex ultrasonography versus angiotomography for the diagnosis of extracranial internal carotid stenosis.

INTRODUCTION: Internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis causes about 15% of ischemic strokes. Duplex ultrasonography (DUS) is the first line of investigation of ICA stenosis, but its accuracy varies in the literature and it is usual to complement the study with another more accurate exam when faced with significant stenosis. There is a lack of studies that compare DUS with angiotomography (CTA) in the present literature. METHODS: we performed an accuracy study, which compared DUS to CTA of patients in a tertiary hospital with a maximum interval of three months between tests. Patients were selected retrospectively, and two independent and certified vascular surgeons evaluated each image in a masked manner. When there was discordance, a third evaluator was summoned. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of ICA stenosis of 50-94% and 70-94%. RESULTS: we included 45 patients and 84 arteries after inclusion and exclusion criteria applied. For the 50-94% stenosis range, DUS accuracy was 69%, sensitivity 89%, and specificity 63%. For the 70-94% stenosis range, DUS accuracy was 84%, sensitivity 61%, and specificity 93%. There was discordance between CTA evaluators with a change from clinical to surgical management in at least 37.5% of the conflicting reports. CONCLUSION: DUS had an accuracy of 69% for stenoses of 50-94% and 84% for stenoses of 70-94% of the ICA. The CTA analysis depended directly on the evaluator with a change in clinical conduct in more than 37% of cases.

Accuracy of duplex ultrasonography versus angiotomography for the diagnosis of extracranial internal carotid stenosis / Acurácia da ultrassonografia duplex comparada à angiotomografia para o diagnóstico de estenose de carótida interna extracraniana

ABSTRACT Introduction: Internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis causes about 15% of ischemic strokes. Duplex ultrasonography (DUS) is the first line of investigation of ICA stenosis, but its accuracy varies in the literature and it is usual to complement the study with another more accurate exam when faced with significant stenosis. There is a lack of studies that compare DUS with angiotomography (CTA) in the present literature. Methods: we performed an accuracy study, which compared DUS to CTA of patients in a tertiary hospital with a maximum interval of three months between tests. Patients were selected retrospectively, and two independent and certified vascular surgeons evaluated each image in a masked manner. When there was discordance, a third evaluator was summoned. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of ICA stenosis of 50-94% and 70-94%. Results: we included 45 patients and 84 arteries after inclusion and exclusion criteria applied. For the 50-94% stenosis range, DUS accuracy was 69%, sensitivity 89%, and specificity 63%. For the 70-94% stenosis range, DUS accuracy was 84%, sensitivity 61%, and specificity 93%. There was discordance between CTA evaluators with a change from clinical to surgical management in at least 37.5% of the conflicting reports. Conclusion: DUS had an accuracy of 69% for stenoses of 50-94% and 84% for stenoses of 70-94% of the ICA. The CTA analysis depended directly on the evaluator with a change in clinical conduct in more than 37% of cases.

RESUMO Introdução: a estenose da artéria carótida interna (ACI) causa cerca de 15% dos acidentes vasculares cerebrais isquêmicos. A ultrassonografia duplex (USD) é a primeira linha de investigação da estenose de ACI, mas sua acurácia varia na literatura e é comum complementar o estudo com outro exame de maior acurácia diante de estenose significativa. Há uma escassez de estudos que comparem a USD com a angiotomografia computadorizada (ATC) na literatura atual. Métodos: realizamos um estudo de acurácia, que comparou a USD à ATC de pacientes de um hospital terciário com um intervalo máximo de três meses entre os exames. Os pacientes foram selecionados retrospectivamente e dois cirurgiões vasculares independentes e certificados avaliaram cada imagem de maneira mascarada. Quando houve discordância, um terceiro avaliador foi convocado. Avaliou-se a precisão diagnóstica da estenose da ACI de 50-94% e 70-94%. Resultados: foram incluídos 45 pacientes e 84 artérias após a aplicação dos critérios de inclusão e exclusão. Para a faixa de estenose de 50-94%, a acurácia da USD foi 69%, sensibilidade 89% e especificidade 63%. Para a faixa de estenose de 70-94%, a acurácia da USD foi 84%, sensibilidade 61% e especificidade 93%. Ocorreu discordância entre avaliadores da ATC com mudança de conduta clínica para cirúrgica em pelo menos 37,5% dos laudos conflitantes. Conclusão: a USD teve uma acurácia de 69% para estenoses de 50-94% e de 84% para estenoses de 70-94% da ACI. A análise das ATC dependeu diretamente do avaliador com mudança de conduta clínica em mais de 37% dos casos.

Pharmacological interventions for asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenosis is narrowing of the carotid arteries. Asymptomatic carotid stenosis is when this narrowing occurs in people without a history or symptoms of this disease. It is caused by atherosclerosis; that is, the build-up of fats, cholesterol, and other substances in and on the artery walls. Atherosclerosis is more likely to occur in people with several risk factors, such as diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, and smoking. As this damage can develop without symptoms, the first symptom can be a fatal or disabling stroke, known as ischaemic stroke. Carotid stenosis leading to ischaemic stroke is most common in men older than 70 years. Ischaemic stroke is a worldwide public health problem. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of asymptomatic carotid stenosis in preventing neurological impairment, ipsilateral major or disabling stroke, death, major bleeding, and other outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and three trials registers from their inception to 9 August 2022. We also checked the reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of publication status and language, comparing a pharmacological intervention to placebo, no treatment, or another pharmacological intervention for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the trials. A third author resolved disagreements when necessary. We assessed the evidence certainty for key outcomes using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 34 RCTs with 11,571 participants. Data for meta-analysis were available from only 22 studies with 6887 participants. The mean follow-up period was 2.5 years. None of the 34 included studies assessed neurological impairment and quality of life. Antiplatelet agent (acetylsalicylic acid) versus placebo Acetylsalicylic acid (1 study, 372 participants) may result in little to no difference in ipsilateral major or disabling stroke (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 2.47), stroke-related mortality (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.59), progression of carotid stenosis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71), and adverse events (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.59), compared to placebo (all low-certainty evidence). The effect of acetylsalicylic acid on major bleeding is very uncertain (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.53; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure neurological impairment or quality of life. Antihypertensive agents (metoprolol and chlorthalidone) versus placebo The antihypertensive agent, metoprolol, may result in no difference in ipsilateral major or disabling stroke (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to1.16; 1 study, 793 participants) and stroke-related mortality (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.94; 1 study, 793 participants) compared to placebo (both low-certainty evidence). However, chlorthalidone may slow the progression of carotid stenosis (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.91; 1 study, 129 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. Neither study measured neurological impairment, major bleeding, adverse events, or quality of life. Anticoagulant agent (warfarin) versus placebo The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of warfarin (1 study, 919 participants) on major bleeding (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.46; very low-certainty evidence), but it may reduce adverse events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. The study did not measure neurological impairment, ipsilateral major or disabling stroke, stroke-related mortality, progression of carotid stenosis, or quality of life. Lipid-lowering agents (atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, probucol, and rosuvastatin) versus placebo or no treatment Lipid-lowering agents may result in little to no difference in ipsilateral major or disabling stroke (atorvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and rosuvastatin; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.53; 5 studies, 2235 participants) stroke-related mortality (lovastatin and pravastatin; RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.29; 2 studies, 1366 participants), and adverse events (fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, probucol, and rosuvastatin; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53 to1.10; 7 studies, 3726 participants) compared to placebo or no treatment (all low-certainty evidence). The studies did not measure neurological impairment, major bleeding, progression of carotid stenosis, or quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although there is no high-certainty evidence to support pharmacological intervention, this does not mean that pharmacological treatments are ineffective in preventing ischaemic cerebral events, morbidity, and mortality. High-quality RCTs are needed to better inform the best medical treatment that may reduce the burden of carotid stenosis. In the interim, clinicians will have to use other sources of information.

Monitoring health as an opportunity to categorize preventative and early-treatment actions in a self-care journey: our experience with a Healthcare Magenta Scorecard.

Background: Applying a digital health intervention to measure health and wellbeing status offers opportunities to guide and augment healthcare and promotion. In our scenario, we consider mainly digital-native patients and present an evaluation of a new Healthcare Magenta Scorecard towards this end. Methods: Grounded in the six domains of health and promotion (physical activity; sleep quality; nutrition; habits/lifestyle; mental health; quality of life) we developed a health Magenta Scorecard (Magenta Score), a mobile based Electronic Patient Reported Outcomes (e-PRO) that measures patients health and wellbeing every 3-5 months. The Magenta Scorecard was derived from previously published evidence-based instruments. We collected data as patients were onboarded into our healthcare system (T0 and T1, time span between measurements, 141 days) and provided correlations among our domains of care. Results: A total of 1,622 participants responded to T0 and T1 our Magenta Scorecard. Participants mean age was 31.3 [95% confidence interval (CI): 31.2-31.5] years and female (63.4%). Fifty-five percent (n=892) of our sample were categorized as relating to Health and Wellbeing promotion, 8.5% (n=138) disease management, 35.7% (n=579) self-care care support and only 0.8% (n=13) pertained to case management. From our care coordination guided approach, our Magenta Scorecards reported mean improvement across the study cohort of 26 ± standard deviation (SD) points, from T0 (649, 95% CI: 643-656) to T1 (675, 95% CI: 668-682). Our Magenta Scorecard domains had significant, albeit weak spearman correlations. Conclusions: We demonstrated our Magenta Scorecard rationale and its guided approach. The Magenta Scorecard displayed adequate responsiveness and was significantly correlated across all of the domains investigated. Further prospective research is needed to validate our results in the long term.

Duplex ultrasound for diagnosing symptomatic carotid stenosis in the extracranial segments.

BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenosis is an important cause of stroke and transient ischemic attack. Correctly and rapidly identifying patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis is essential for adequate treatment with early cerebral revascularization. Doubts about the diagnostic value regarding the accuracy of duplex ultrasound (DUS) and the possibility of using DUS as the single diagnostic test before carotid revascularization are still debated. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the accuracy of DUS in individuals with symptomatic carotid stenosis verified by either digital subtraction angiography (DSA), computed tomography angiography (CTA), or magnetic resonance angiography (MRA). SEARCH METHODS: We searched CRDTAS, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), ISI Web of Science, HTA, DARE, and LILACS up to 15 February 2021. We handsearched the reference lists of all included studies and other relevant publications and contacted experts in the field to identify additional studies or unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies assessing DUS accuracy against an acceptable reference standard (DSA, MRA, or CTA) in symptomatic patients. We considered the classification of carotid stenosis with DUS defined with validated duplex velocity criteria, and the NASCET criteria for carotid stenosis measures on DSA, MRA, and CTA. We excluded studies that included < 70% of symptomatic patients; the time between the index test and the reference standard was longer than four weeks or not described, or that presented no objective criteria to estimate carotid stenosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors independently screened articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 domain list. We extracted data with an effort to complete a 2 × 2 table (true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives) for each of the different categories of carotid stenosis and reference standards. We produced forest plots and summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plots to summarize the data. Where meta-analysis was possible, we used a bivariate meta-analysis model. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 25,087 unique studies, of which 22 were deemed eligible for inclusion (4957 carotid arteries). The risk of bias varied considerably across the studies, and studies were generally of moderate to low quality. We narratively described the results without meta-analysis in seven studies in which the criteria used to determine stenosis were too different from the duplex velocity criteria proposed in our protocol or studies that provided insufficient data to complete a 2 × 2 table for at least in one category of stenosis. Nine studies (2770 carotid arteries) presented DUS versus DSA results for 70% to 99% carotid artery stenosis, and two (685 carotid arteries) presented results from DUS versus CTA in this category. Seven studies presented results for occlusion with DSA as the reference standard and three with CTA as the reference standard. Five studies compared DUS versus DSA for 50% to 99% carotid artery stenosis. Only one study presented results from 50% to 69% carotid artery stenosis. For DUS versus DSA, for < 50% carotid artery stenosis, the summary sensitivity was 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48 to 0.76) and the summary specificity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.96 to 0.99); for the 50% to 69% range, only one study was included and meta-analysis not performed; for the 50% to 99% range, the summary sensitivity was 0.97 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.98) and the summary specificity was 0.70 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.73); for the 70% to 99% range, the summary sensitivity was 0.85 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.91) and the summary specificity was 0.98 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.90); for occlusion, the summary sensitivity was 0.91 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97) and the summary specificity was 0.95 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.99). For sensitivity analyses, excluding studies in which participants were selected based on the presence of occlusion on DUS had an impact on specificity: 0.98 (95% CI 0.97 to 0.99). For DUS versus CTA, we found two studies in the range of 70% to 99%; the sensitivity varied from 0.57 to 0.94 and the specificity varied from 0.87 to 0.98. For occlusion, the summary sensitivity was 0.95 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.99) and the summary specificity was 0.91 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.99). For DUS versus MRA, there was one study with results for 50% to 99% carotid artery stenosis, with a sensitivity of 0.88 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.98) and specificity of 0.60 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.95); in the 70% to 99% range, two studies were included, with sensitivity that varied from 0.54 to 0.99 and specificity that varied from 0.78 to 0.89. We could perform only a few of the proposed sensitivity analyses because of the small number of studies included. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides evidence that the diagnostic accuracy of DUS is high, especially at discriminating between the presence or absence of significant carotid artery stenosis (< 50% or 50% to 99%). This evidence, plus its less invasive nature, supports the early use of DUS for the detection of carotid artery stenosis. The accuracy for 70% to 99% carotid artery stenosis and occlusion is high. Clinicians should exercise caution when using DUS as the single preoperative diagnostic method, and the limitations should be considered. There was little evidence of the accuracy of DUS when compared with CTA or MRA. The results of this review should be interpreted with caution because they are based on studies of low methodological quality, mainly due to the patient selection method. Methodological problems in participant inclusion criteria from the studies discussed above apparently influenced an overestimated estimate of prevalence values. Most of the studies included failed to precisely describe inclusion criteria and previous testing. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should include direct comparisons of the various modalities of diagnostic tests (mainly DUS, CTA, and MRA) for carotid artery stenosis since DSA is no longer considered to be the best method for diagnosing carotid stenosis and less invasive tests are now used as reference standards in clinical practice. Also, for future studies, the participant inclusion criteria require careful attention.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults: An overview of 46 systematic reviews.

AIMS: To summarize the evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors versus placebo or active comparators for type 2 diabetes mellitus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched six databases between 2014 and 2021. We assessed the quality of evidence using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and summarized the main outcome results according to their evidence of benefit (PROSPERO ID: CRD42019132431). RESULTS: We included 46 SRs, comprising 175 RCTs and 136 096 participants. The results showed "clear evidence of benefit" in relation to: myocardial infarction (odds ratio [OR]/hazard ratio [HR] 0.85 to 0.91); cardiovascular mortality (OR/HR 0.67 to 0.86); heart failure (OR/HR 0.64 to 0.69); albuminuria progression and composite renal outcome (relative risk [RR]/HR 0.55 to 0.63); glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) versus placebo (mean difference [MD] -0.49% to -0.77% [5.4 to 8.4 mmol/mol]); and weight versus placebo (MD -1.09 kg to -2.99 kg). "Possible benefit" was observed in relation to major adverse cardiovascular events (OR/HR 0.80 to 0.89), all-cause mortality and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. SGLT2 inhibitors showed "clear evidence of no effect or equivalence" in relation to stroke and fractures. "Clear evidence of harm" was observed in relation to genital infections (RR/OR 2.06 to 5.25) and ketoacidosis (HR/OR 1.36 to 2.20). Regarding amputation risk and urinary tract infections, we found "no conclusions possible due to lack of evidence". CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that SGLT2 inhibitors have beneficial effects in relation to renal and cardiovascular outcomes (except for stroke), HbA1c and weight. Further studies are needed to assess urinary infections and amputation risk.

Immediate versus delayed treatment for recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: The timing of surgery for recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis remains controversial. Early cerebral revascularization may prevent a disabling or fatal ischemic recurrence, but it may also increase the risk of hemorrhagic transformation, or of dislodging a thrombus. This review examined the randomized controlled evidence that addressed whether the increased risk of recurrent events outweighed the increased benefit of an earlier intervention. OBJECTIVES: To assess the risks and benefits of performing very early cerebral revascularization (within two days) compared with delayed treatment (after two days) for people with recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. METHODS: Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register in January 2016, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2016, issue 1), MEDLINE (1948 to 26 January 2016), EMBASE (1974 to 26 January 2016), LILACS (1982 to 26 January 2016), and trial registers (from inception to 26 January 2016). We also handsearched conference proceedings and journals, and searched reference lists. There were no language restrictions. We contacted colleagues and pharmaceutical companies to identify further studies and unpublished trials Selection criteria: All completed, truly randomized trials (RCT) that compared very early cerebral revascularization (within two days) with delayed treatment (after two days) for people with recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Data collection and analysis: We independently selected trials for inclusion according to the above criteria, assessed risk of bias for each trial, and performed data extraction. We utilized an intention-to-treat analysis strategy. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one RCT that involved 40 participants, and addressed the timing of surgery for people with recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. It compared very early surgery with surgery performed after 14 days of the last symptomatic event. The overall quality of the evidence was very low, due to the small number of participants from only one trial, and missing outcome data. We found no statistically significant difference between the effects of very early or delayed surgery in reducing the combined risk of stroke and death within 30 days of surgery (risk ratio (RR) 3.32; confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 29.23; very low-quality evidence), or the combined risk of perioperative death and stroke (RR 0.47; CI 0.14 to 1.58; very low-quality evidence). To date, no results are available to confirm the optimal timing for surgery. AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no high-quality evidence available to support either very early or delayed cerebral revascularization after a recent ischemic stroke. Hence, further randomized trials to identify which patients should undergo very urgent revascularization are needed. Future studies should stratify participants by age group, sex, grade of ischemia, and degree of stenosis. Currently, there is one ongoing RCT that is examining the timing of cerebral revascularization.

Immediate versus delayed treatment for recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis.

BACKGROUND: The timing of surgery for recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis remains controversial. Early cerebral revascularization may prevent a disabling or fatal ischemic recurrence, but it may also increase the risk of hemorrhagic transformation, or of dislodging a thrombus. This review examined the randomized controlled evidence that addressed whether the increased risk of recurrent events outweighed the increased benefit of an earlier intervention. OBJECTIVES: To assess the risks and benefits of performing very early cerebral revascularization (within two days) compared with delayed treatment (after two days) for people with recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register in January 2016, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1948 to 26 January 2016), EMBASE (1974 to 26 January 2016), LILACS (1982 to 26 January 2016), and trial registers (from inception to 26 January 2016). We also handsearched conference proceedings and journals, and searched reference lists. There were no language restrictions. We contacted colleagues and pharmaceutical companies to identify further studies and unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All completed, truly randomized trials (RCT) that compared very early cerebral revascularization (within two days) with delayed treatment (after two days) for people with recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently selected trials for inclusion according to the above criteria, assessed risk of bias for each trial, and performed data extraction. We utilized an intention-to-treat analysis strategy. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one RCT that involved 40 participants, and addressed the timing of surgery for people with recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. It compared very early surgery with surgery performed after 14 days of the last symptomatic event. The overall quality of the evidence was very low, due to the small number of participants from only one trial, and missing outcome data. We found no statistically significant difference between the effects of very early or delayed surgery in reducing the combined risk of stroke and death within 30 days of surgery (risk ratio (RR) 3.32; confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 29.23; very low-quality evidence), or the combined risk of perioperative death and stroke (RR 0.47; CI 0.14 to 1.58; very low-quality evidence). To date, no results are available to confirm the optimal timing for surgery. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no high-quality evidence available to support either very early or delayed cerebral revascularization after a recent ischemic stroke. Hence, further randomized trials to identify which patients should undergo very urgent revascularization are needed. Future studies should stratify participants by age group, sex, grade of ischemia, and degree of stenosis. Currently, there is one ongoing RCT that is examining the timing of cerebral revascularization.

Immediate versus delayed treatment for recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis.

BACKGROUND:: The timing of surgery for recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis remains controversial. Early cerebral revascularization may prevent a disabling or fatal ischemic recurrence, but it may also increase the risk of hemorrhagic transformation, or of dislodging a thrombus. This review examined the randomized controlled evidence that addressed whether the increased risk of recurrent events outweighed the increased benefit of an earlier intervention. OBJECTIVES:: To assess the risks and benefits of performing very early cerebral revascularization (within two days) compared with delayed treatment (after two days) for people with recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. METHODS:: Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register in January 2016, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2016, issue 1), MEDLINE (1948 to 26 January 2016), EMBASE (1974 to 26 January 2016), LILACS (1982 to 26 January 2016), and trial registers (from inception to 26 January 2016). We also handsearched conference proceedings and journals, and searched reference lists. There were no language restrictions. We contacted colleagues and pharmaceutical companies to identify further studies and unpublished trials Selection criteria: All completed, truly randomized trials (RCT) that compared very early cerebral revascularization (within two days) with delayed treatment (after two days) for people with recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis.Data collection and analysis: We independently selected trials for inclusion according to the above criteria, assessed risk of bias for each trial, and performed data extraction. We utilized an intention-to-treat analysis strategy. MAIN RESULTS:: We identified one RCT that involved 40 participants, and addressed the timing of surgery for people with recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. It compared very early surgery with surgery performed after 14 days of the last symptomatic event. The overall quality of the evidence was very low, due to the small number of participants from only one trial, and missing outcome data. We found no statistically significant difference between the effects of very early or delayed surgery in reducing the combined risk of stroke and death within 30 days of surgery (risk ratio (RR) 3.32; confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 29.23; very low-quality evidence), or the combined risk of perioperative death and stroke (RR 0.47; CI 0.14 to 1.58; very low-quality evidence). To date, no results are available to confirm the optimal timing for surgery. AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS:: There is currently no high-quality evidence available to support either very early or delayed cerebral revascularization after a recent ischemic stroke. Hence, further randomized trials to identify which patients should undergo very urgent revascularization are needed. Future studies should stratify participants by age group, sex, grade of ischemia, and degree of stenosis. Currently, there is one ongoing RCT that is examining the timing of cerebral revascularization.

Acupuncture for tinnitus immediate relief.

The treatment of tinnitus, which is defined as conscientious perception of a sound originated in the ears or nervous system, represents until the current days a great challenge. The use of Acupuncture (ACP) is based on the stimulation with needles of specific points on the human anatomy. A prospective, randomized and double-blinded study was carried through in 76 patients taken care of in the Clinic of Tinnitus of the Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery of the UNIFESP-EPM in the period understood between April and June of 2005. All the patients had humming complaint and had been submitted to clinical anamnese, physical examination and subsidiary exams in order to investigate its etiology. The patients then were directed to a first researcher that determined an initial numeric value of the humming through Visual Analoge Scale(VAS), varying from 0 to 10 points. After this, had been directed for another room in which an acupuncturist doctor, who did not have access to the initial evaluation, separated the patients in Group Control and Group Study according to the attendance order, in alternating way. The ACP point used in patients of the Group Study places 6,5 cm above of the apex of the auditory pavilion in the parietal region. The point used in the Group Control places 3 cm above of the previous point, in the same vertical line. Then they had been sent back to the initial room for a new evaluation by the first researcher, where they had been guided to redefine the subjective score of the humming. Among the 76 studied patients, 29 were male (38,2%) and 47 female (61,8%), with average age 56,9 + 12,0 years. The Groups Study and Control had counted on 38 patients each. Through the Anova test it was evidenced that it had significant difference (p<0,001) between the moments pre and post needling and that in the group Study this improvement is more evident (p=0,0127). The t-independent test showed that it had a significant difference (p=0,017) between the two moments in the groups Study and Control. We conclude that there was significant reduction of the counting of the moments pre and post needling in both the groups, and in the group study the reduction is greater that in the group control.

O uso da acupuntura para alívio imediato do zumbido / Acupuncture for tinnitus immediate relief

O zumbido, definido como percepção consciente de um som originado nas orelhas ou no sistema nervoso do paciente, representa até os dias atuais um grande desafio no que concerne seu tratamento, baseia-se na estimulação com agulhas de pontos específicos definidos sobre a anatomia humana. A utilização da Acupuntura (ACP) em sintomas como o zumbido assemelha-se ao modelo aplicado nos quadros álgicos, já que ambos estão relacionados como experiência sensorial e emocional subjetiva e desagradável. OBJETIVO: Estudar a eficácia da acupuntura no alívio sintomático de forma aguda no zumbido. FORMA DE ESTUDO: Clínico prospectivo. MATERIAL E MÉTODO: Foi realizado um estudo prospectivo, randomizado e duplo-cego em 76 pacientes atendidos no Ambulatório de Zumbido do Departamento de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia de Cabeça e Pescoço da UNIFESP-EPM no período compreendido entre abril e junho de 2005. Todos os pacientes tinham queixa de zumbido e foram submetidos a anamnese clínica, exame físico e exames subsidiários a fim de se investigar sua etiologia. Os pacientes eram então encaminhados a um primeiro pesquisador que determinou um valor numérico subjetivo inicial do zumbido através de Escala Visual Analógica (EVA), variando de 0 a 10 pontos. Após isto, foram encaminhados para outra sala na qual um médico acupunturista, que não tinha acesso à avaliação inicial, separou os pacientes em Grupo Controle e Grupo Estudo de acordo com a ordem de atendimento, de maneira alternada. O ponto de ACP utilizado nos pacientes do Grupo Estudo situa-se a 6,5cm acima do ápice do pavilhão auditivo na região têmporo-parietal. O ponto utilizado no Grupo Controle situa-se 3cm acima do ponto anterior, na mesma linha vertical. Foram então encaminhados à sala inicial para uma nova avaliação pelo primeiro pesquisador, onde foram orientados a redefinir o escore subjetivo do zumbido. RESULTADOS: Dos 76 pacientes estudados, 29 eram do sexo masculino (38,2 por cento) e 47 do sexo feminino (61,8 por cento), com idade média 56,9 + 12,0 anos. Os Grupos Estudo e Controle contaram com 38 pacientes cada. Através do teste Anova foi constatado que houve diferença significante (p<0,001) entre os momentos pré e pós-agulhamento e que no grupo Estudo essa melhora é bem maior (p = 0,0127)...