Improving duplex ultrasound methods for diagnosing functional popliteal artery entrapment syndrome

OBJECTIVES: Popliteal artery entrapment syndrome (PAES) is a rare condition where musculoskeletal structures compress the popliteal artery (POPA) leading to vascular compromise. This study investigates the effect of dynamic plantar- and dorsi-flexion loading on POPA hemodynamic parameters to develop a robust diagnostic ultrasound-based protocol for diagnosing functional PAES.METHODS: Healthy individuals (n = 20), recreational athletes (n = 20), and symptomatic (n = 20) PAES patients were consented. Triplex ultrasound imaging of lower limb arteries was performed (n = 120 limbs). Proximal and distal POPA's in dorsi-/plantar-flexion, in prone and erect positions, were imaged at rest and flexion. Peak systolic velocities (cm/s) and vessel diameter (antero-posterior, cm) was measured.RESULTS: Distal vessel occlusion was noted across all three groups whilst prone during plantar-flexion (62.7%). POPA occlusion was only noted in the proximal vessel within the patient group (15.8%). When prone, 50% of control (n = 40 limbs), 70% of athletes (n = 40 limbs), and 65% of patients (n = 40 limbs) had distal POPA occlusion in plantar-flexion. When prone, recreational athletes (5%), and patients (12.5%) had distal POPA compression under dorsi-flexion. POPA occlusions with the patient in erect position were only noted in the symptomatic patient group under both dorsi-flexion (15.8%) and plantar-flexion (23.7%).CONCLUSION: Compression of the POPA on ultrasound should not be the sole diagnostic criteria for PAES. POPA compression exists in asymptomatic individuals, primarily under prone plantar-flexion. To reduce false positives, ultrasound-based protocols should focus on scanning patients in the erect position only to diagnose PAES, rather than asymptomatic POPA compression. A distinction should be made between the two.</p

Surgical management of a symptomatic extracranial internal carotid artery aneurysm and coexisting carotid body tumor

Treatment of carotid body tumors and extracranial carotid artery aneurysms are well documented in the literature as separate entities. As distinct pathologies, they present technical difficulties with high complication rates. No patients with simultaneous carotid body tumors and extracranial internal carotid artery aneurysms have been reported. We report, to our knowledge, the first and subsequent surgical management of such a patient

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