Carotid stenosis in logistic restraints Optimizing treatment of significant carotid artery stenosis in times of logistic restraints as a result of COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 confronted medical care with many challenges. During the pandemic, several resources were limited resulting in renouncing or postponing medical care like carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for patients with significant carotid artery stenosis. Although according to international guidelines CEA is the first choice, carotid artery stenting (CAS) could potentially be a reasonable alternative especially during logistical restraints. PURPOSE: To evaluate outcomes of CAS versus CEA before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Our hypothesis was that a CAS first approach yielded comparable outcomes compared to a CEA first approach. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with significant carotid artery stenosis treated with CEA or CAS between September 2018 and March 2023. Each consecutive period of 1.5 year marked a new (treatment) period: pre-COVID (CEA first strategy), during COVID (CAS first strategy) and post COVID (patient tailored approach). Primary outcome was the composite endpoint of stroke, TIA or death within 30 days. Secondary outcome consisted of the rate of technical success, cerebral hyperperfusion syndrome, myocardial infarction or other cardiac complications needing intervention, bleeding of the surgical site needing intervention, nerve palsy, unintended IC admission, pseudoaneurysm, restenosis or occlusion. RESULTS: A total of 318 patients were included. Out of 137 patients treated with CEA, 55, 36 and 46 were treated pre-COVID, during COVID and post-COVID, respectively. Out of 181 CAS procedures, 38, 59 and 84, respectively, were performed in each time period. Primary outcome occurred in 5.5%, 0% and 2.2% in the CEA group and 0%, 1.7% and 3.6% in the CAS group (p = .27; p = 1.00; p = 1.00, respectively). Overall technical success was 100% for CEA and 99.4% for CAS (p = 1.00). Rate of restenosis was the only secondary outcome measure which was significantly better after CAS compared to CEA in the pre- and post-COVID period (CEA vs CAS, 12.7% vs 7.9% and 23.9% vs 4.8% with a p-value of .03 and .03, respectively). Hospital presentation to treatment interval did not differ significantly during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Outcomes were comparable between CAS versus CEA in patients with significant carotid artery stenosis before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. CAS showed better results in terms of other complications (i.e., restenosis rate) in the pre- and post-COVID period compared to CEA. Our results may support a CAS first approach when no relevant contra-indications exist without exposing the patient to complications associated with an open surgical approach. Discussion in a multidisciplinary team is advised.

Systematic Review on Botulinum Toxin Injections as Diagnostic or Therapeutic Tool in Thoracic Outlet Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The optimal diagnostic and treatment algorithm for patients with suspected thoracic outlet syndrome (TOS) remains challenging. Botulinum toxin (BTX) muscle injections have been suggested to shrink muscles in the thoracic outlet reducing neurovascular compression. This systematic review evaluates the diagnostic and therapeutic value of BTX injections in TOS. METHODS: A systematic review of studies reporting BTX as a diagnostic or therapeutic tool in TOS (or pectoralis minor syndrome as TOS subtype) was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases on May 26, 2022. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement was followed. Primary end point was symptom reduction after primary procedure. Secondary end points were symptom reduction after repeated procedures, the degree of symptom reduction, complications, and duration of clinical effect. RESULTS: Eight studies (1 randomized controlled trial [RCT], 1 prospective cohort study, and 6 retrospective cohort studies) were included reporting 716 procedures in at least 497 patients (at minimum 350 primary and 25 repeated procedures, residual unclear) diagnosed with presumably only neurogenic TOS. Except for the RCT, the methodological quality was fair to poor. All studies were designed on an intention to treat basis, one also investigated BTX as a diagnostic tool to differentiate pectoralis minor syndrome from costoclavicular compression. Reduction of symptoms was reported in 46-63% of primary procedures; no significant difference was found in the RCT. The effect of repeated procedures could not be determined. Degree of symptom reduction was reported by up to 30-42% on the Short-form McGill Pain scale and up to 40 mm on a visual analog scale. Complication rates varied among studies, no major complications were reported. Symptom relief ranged from 1 to 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Based on limited quality evidence, BTX may provide short-lasting symptom relief in some neurogenic TOS patients but remains overall undecided. The role of BTX for treatment of vascular TOS and as a diagnostic tool in TOS is currently unexploited.

Feasibility of critical care ergometry: Exercise data of patients on mechanical ventilation analyzed as nine-panel plots.

Nine-panel plots are standard displays of cardiopulmonary exercise data, used in cardiac and pulmonary medicine to investigate the nature of exercise limitation. We explored whether this approach could be used to analyze the data of critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation, capable of exercising actively. Patients followed an incremental exercise protocol using a bedside cycle ergometer. Respiratory gases were analyzed using indirect calorimetry, and blood gases were sampled from arterial catheters. Data of seven patients were combined into nine-panel plots. Systematic analysis clarified the nature of exercise limitation in six cases. Resting metabolic rate was increased in all patients, with a median oxygen uptake ( V˙O2 ) of 5.52 (IQR 4.29-6.31) ml/kg/min. Unloaded cycling increased the V˙O2 by 19.8% to 6.61 (IQR 5.99-7.08) ml/kg/min. Adding load to the ergometer increased the V˙O2 by another 20.0% to reach V˙O2peak at a median of 7.14 (IQR 6.67-10.75) ml/kg/min, corresponding to a median extrinsic workload of 7 W. This was accompanied by increased CO2 production, respiratory minute volume, heart rate, and oxygen pulse. Three patients increased their V˙O2 to >40% of predicted V˙O2max , two patients passed the anaerobic threshold. Dead space ventilation was 44%, decreasing to 42% and accompanied by lower ventilatory equivalents during exercise. Exercise produced no net change in alveolo-arterial PO2 difference. We concluded that diagnostic ergometry in mechanically ventilated patients was feasible. Analysis of the data as nine-panel plots provided insight into individual limitations to exercise.

(In)comparability of Carotid Artery Stent Characteristics: A Systematic Review on Assessment and Comparison with Manufacturer Data.

PURPOSE: Carotid stent (CS) characteristics, such as radial force, scaffolding and flexibility, are continuously modified by stent manufacturers aiming to improve stent performance. Since manufacturers' definitions and assessment methods are not disclosed, it is unknown how characteristics of different CSs relate to each other or to published literature. We examined in vitro methodological techniques used to measure CS characteristics and assessed comparability between published papers and outcomes as provided by the manufacturers. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus databases. Studies reporting on in vitro investigations of predefined characteristics of CS used in current everyday clinical practice were included. The predefined characteristics were radial force, scaffolding, flexibility, foreshortening, side-branch preservation and visibility. Eight manufacturers of 10 currently used CS were contacted and data on the predefined device characteristics was requested. RESULTS: 12 published articles were included and six stent manufacturers provided data on six stents (two refused to share data). Used methodologies to measure stent characteristics in published literature and manufacturer data varied greatly for all included characteristics except foreshortening. The number of different units of measurement to express outcomes ranged from two for foreshortening to six for radial force. CONCLUSION: A variety of methodologies and outcome measures is used to quantify CS characteristics, which hampers comparisons between published studies and manufacturer data. Future studies are encouraged to synchronize methodologies and outcome measures. Manufacturers are encouraged up to increase transparency of applied testing methodologies and outcomes.