Cardiovascular Risk Perception and Knowledge among Italian Women: Lessons from IGENDA Protocol

A multicenter, cross-sectional observational study (Italian GENder Differences in Awareness of Cardiovascular risk, IGENDA study) was carried out to evaluate the perception and knowledge of cardiovascular risk among Italian women. An anonymous questionnaire was completed by 4454 women (44.3 ± 14.1 years). The 70% of respondents correctly identified cardiovascular disease (CVD) as the leading cause of death. More than half of respondents quoted cancer as the greatest current and future health problem of women of same age. Sixty percent of interviewed women considered CVD as an almost exclusively male condition. Although respondents showed a good knowledge of the major cardiovascular risk factors, the presence of cardiovascular risk factors was not associated with higher odds of identifying CVD as the biggest cause of death. Less than 10% of respondents perceived themselves as being at high CVD risk, and the increased CVD risk perception was associated with ageing, higher frequency of cardiovascular risk factors and disease, and a poorer self-rated health status. The findings of this study highlight the low perception of cardiovascular risk in Italian women and suggest an urgent need to enhance knowledge and perception of CVD risk in womenasareal health problem and not just as a as a life-threatening threat

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2) : a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

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. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86-1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91-1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable