Background Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence.Methods ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362.

Introduction: Aim of the study is to assess the occurrence of early stage coagulopathy and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) in patients with mild to moderate respiratory distress secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Materials and methods: Data of patients hospitalized from 18 March 2020 to 20 April 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Two scores for the screening of coagulopathy (SIC and non-overt DIC scores) were calculated. The occurrence of thrombotic complication, death, and worsening respiratory function requiring non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or admission to ICU were recorded, and these outcomes were correlated with the results of each score. Chi-square test, receiver-operating characteristic curve, and logistic regression analysis were used as appropriate. p Values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: Data of 32 patients were analyzed. Overt-DIC was diagnosed in two patients (6.2%), while 26 (81.2%) met the criteria for non-overt DIC. Non-overt DIC score values ≥4 significantly correlated with the need of NIV/ICU (p = 0.02) and with the occurrence of thrombotic complications (p = 0.04). A score ≥4 was the optimal cut-off value, performing better than SIC score (p = 0.0018). Values ≥4 in patients with thrombotic complications were predictive of death (p = 0.03). Conclusions: Overt DIC occurred in 6.2% of non-ICU patients hospitalized for a mild to moderate COVID-19 respiratory distress, while 81.2% fulfilled the criteria for non-overt DIC. The non-overt DIC score performed better than the SIC score in predicting the need of NIV/ICU and the occurrence of thrombotic complications, as well as in predicting mortality in patients with thrombotic complications, with a score ≥4 being detected as the optimal cut-off.

This pilot study suggests that the acute and subacute phase of both type A and type B aortic dissection is characterized by an increase of MMP-9 plasma levels. A marked increase is also evident in the subacute phase of medically treated type B aortic dissection as an expression of aortic wall remodelling. An increase of proteolytic activity could accompany attempts of the dissected aorta to heal itself but such a phenomena might further weaken the aortic wall, predisposing it to dilation and/or rupture.