SummaryBackgroundStents are an alternative treatment to carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis, but previous trials have not established equivalent safety and efficacy. We compared the safety of carotid artery stenting with that of carotid endarterectomy.MethodsThe International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) is a multicentre, international, randomised controlled trial with blinded adjudication of outcomes. Patients with recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive carotid artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy. Randomisation was by telephone call or fax to a central computerised service and was stratified by centre with minimisation for sex, age, contralateral occlusion, and side of the randomised artery. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. Patients were followed up by independent clinicians not directly involved in delivering the randomised treatment. The primary outcome measure of the trial is the 3-year rate of fatal or disabling stroke in any territory, which has not been analysed yet. The main outcome measure for the interim safety analysis was the 120-day rate of stroke, death, or procedural myocardial infarction. Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT). This study is registered, number ISRCTN25337470.FindingsThe trial enrolled 1713 patients (stenting group, n=855; endarterectomy group, n=858). Two patients in the stenting group and one in the endarterectomy group withdrew immediately after randomisation, and were not included in the ITT analysis. Between randomisation and 120 days, there were 34 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 4·0%) events of disabling stroke or death in the stenting group compared with 27 (3·2%) events in the endarterectomy group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·28, 95% CI 0·77–2·11). The incidence of stroke, death, or procedural myocardial infarction was 8·5% in the stenting group compared with 5·2% in the endarterectomy group (72 vs 44 events; HR 1·69, 1·16–2·45, p=0·006). Risks of any stroke (65 vs 35 events; HR 1·92, 1·27–2·89) and all-cause death (19 vs seven events; HR 2·76, 1·16–6·56) were higher in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group. Three procedural myocardial infarctions were recorded in the stenting group, all of which were fatal, compared with four, all non-fatal, in the endarterectomy group. There was one event of cranial nerve palsy in the stenting group compared with 45 in the endarterectomy group. There were also fewer haematomas of any severity in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group (31 vs 50 events; p=0·0197).InterpretationCompletion of long-term follow-up is needed to establish the efficacy of carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy. In the meantime, carotid endarterectomy should remain the treatment of choice for patients suitable for surgery.FundingMedical Research Council, the Stroke Association, Sanofi-Synthélabo, European Union.

No abstract

Objective This UK multicenter study aims to report early- and medium-term results following covered endovascular reconstruction of aortic bifurcation (CERAB) for the treatment of aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD) in patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia (CLTI) or intermittent claudication (IC). Materials and Methods Retrospective case analysis was performed of patients who underwent CERAB between November 1, 2012 and March 31, 2020 in 6 centers across the United Kingdom. Anatomical data, including degree of plaque calcification, were assessed using preoperative imaging. Outcome measures included mortality, perioperative complications, target lesion reintervention (TLR), and major limb amputation. Primary, assisted primary, and secondary patencies were calculated at set intervals. Results A total of 116 patients underwent CERAB over the study period for the following reasons [48% presenting with CLTI (Rutherford 4–6) and 52% with IC (Rutherford 1–3)]; 82% presented had Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) D AIOD disease. Median age was 65 years (range 42–90 years); 76% of the cohort were male. Severely calcified aortic and iliac lesions were noted in 90% and 80% of patients, respectively. Over a median follow-up of 18 months (range 1–91 months), 2 (1.7%) patients were lost to follow up. In total 5, (4.3%) patients died and 2 (1.7%) had a major amputation. Endovascular TLR was required in 14 (12.1%) patients at last follow up. Surgical TLR was performed in 4 (3.4%) patients at last follow-up. Seven (6%) patients developed an aortic/iliac stent occlusion at last follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier (KM) freedom from TLR at 1 year was 94% and KM 1-year primary patency, assisted primary patency, and secondary patency were 88%, 94%, and 98% respectively. Subanalysis found the following features were associated with need for TLR; TASC D disease (OR = 2.45, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.71), severe aortic calcification (OR = 2.01, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.20), and presence of tissue loss at baseline (OR = 1.43, 95% CI 1.01 to 4.63). Conclusion Perioperative (<30 days) and medium-term morbidity, mortality, and patency rates in this pragmatic cohort of patients with severe AIOD lesions show that CERAB is a valid revascularization option. A direct comparison with surgical treatments for AIOD in a randomized controlled trial is justified.

Background Amputations are associated with markedly reduced long-term survival in patients with diabetic foot disease. However, there is paucity of long-term survival data in published literature.Methods We searched the electronic case records and laboratory details of patients who underwent amputations between 1997 and 2006 to obtain at least 10 years of follow up data after the surgery to assess the survival rates and possible risk factors reducing survival in the year 2016. Amputation level below ankle was considered as minor and above ankle as major amputations.Results Of the 233 cases (159 males; median age 68 years), 161 had major amputations. Of the 72 cases who had minor amputations initially, 63 needed a further amputation or contralateral amputation on follow up. One hundred seventy-seven patients (76%) were not alive after 10 years of follow up. The survival rates at 1, 3, 5, 7, and ≥10 years were 64%, 50%, 40%, 34%, and 24%, respectively. Maximum number of deaths occurred within 4 months of amputations. There was no difference between survival rates following major or minor amputations and among males or females. The only statistically significant parameter affecting lower survival rate was age ≥70 years, with each additional year of age increasing the hazard by a factor of 1.039 (95% CI: 1.024-1.054) or 3.9% (2.4-5.4%).Conclusions Five-year and 10-year survival rates were 40% and 24%, respectively, following diabetic foot amputations. Higher age ≥70 years was associated with lower survival rate compared with younger age groups after lower extremity amputations.

Appendicoliths are formed by calcium salts and faecal debris layered and lodged within the appendix. They are detected on unenhanced x-rays in less than 10% of patients with appendicitis. When an appendicolith is found extraluminally, it is pathognomonic for perforation of the appendix. Moreover, retained appendicoliths act as a nidus for infection and are likely to be the source of a postoperative intraperitoneal abscess. However, this is very rare with only 30 reported cases of intra-abdominal abscess secondary to an appendicolith in the literature over the past 40 years.Retained, or dropped, appendicoliths most commonly present as an area of high attenuation less than 1cm in diameter with an associated abscess close to the caecum or Morrison's pouch on computed tomography (CT). A study published in 2006 showed that although there is initial success with CT-guided drainage of abscesses secondary to faecaliths, all will recur and formal surgical drainage with removal of the appendicolith is required.This case report highlights not only an unusual complication of a retained appendicolith but also the importance of taking a thorough history and interpreting investigations in the context of the patient's past medical history so as to produce a differential diagnosis and prevent treatment of incorrect conditions. 2011; 93: e117-e118 Ann R Coll Surg Engl