Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is a valid and effective alternative to endoatherectomy when performed by experienced operators. The conventional approach used is the transfemoral one, but in the last 10 years a transradial (TR) approach, the standard access for cardiac catheterization, became widely adopted for peripheral vascular interventions, included the extracranial carotids. Preliminary experiences suggest this approach as safe and effective, especially in specific anatomical and clinical settings that have been shown to be associated with high risk of complications from the femoral route. Lacking international guidelines, this document, promoted by the Italian Society of Interventional Cardiology ‐ Gruppo Italiano Studi Emodinamici (SICI‐GISE), was drawn‐up by a panel of interventional cardiologists with a documented experience on the subject, focusing on the indications, techniques and materials that should be used for this type of intervention and the most recent literature on the subject.

The treatment of elderly patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) is challenging because this population is complex and greatly expanding. Drug-eluting stents (DES) generally improve the outcome in high-risk cases. We evaluated the clinical impact of different first-generation DES, i.e., sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), in this context. A prospective, nonrandomized, single-center, allcomers registry consecutively enrolling all patients aged ≥75 years eligible for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with DES was carried out. Only one type of DES was implanted per protocol for each patient. Two groups were identified according to the type of implanted stent, i.e., SES and PES. The primary end point encompassed major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary end point encompassed the rate of definite/probable stent thrombosis and target vessel revascularization (TVR). From June 2004 to May 2008, 151 patients were enrolled. Among them, 112 (74.2%) received SES and 39 (25.8%) received PES. Baseline clinical characteristics were similar, while few angiographic features (ostial location, stent diameter, proximal reference vessel diameter) showed minor differences. At the median follow-up of 22.6 months, primary and secondary end points did not significantly differ in terms of MACE (SES 12.5% vs PES 20.5%, P = 0.3), death (SES 5.4% vs PES 7.7%, P = 0.7), myocardial infarction (SES 4.5% vs PES 10.3%, P = 0.2), TLR (SES 2.7% vs PES 2.6%, P = 1.0), stent thrombosis (SES 1.8% vs PES 5.1%, P = 0.3), and TVR (SES 1.8% vs PES 0%, P = 0.6). In this real-world population of elderly patients treated by DES-PCI for CAD, the overall efficacy and safety have been excellent in both DES, and the choice between SES and PES did not influence the clinical outcome.

No abstract

No abstract

In 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a decrease in interventional treatment for structural heart disease worldwide. In this context, the management of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) or bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) represents a clinical challenge, as a delay in aortic valve replacement procedures may increase short-term morbidity and mortality. We report four cases of TAVR performed in patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. All of them were discharged in good clinical conditions and no adverse events were reported at 30 days follow-up. Our experience suggests that in selected patients with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic native AS or BVD, TAVR has a favorable short-term outcome.