Savastano, Luis E

Historically, the management of carotid artery disease has primarily focused on the degree of stenosis as the main indicator for assessing stroke etiology, risk, and need for intervention. However, accumulating evidence suggests that structural and biological features within the arterial wall, such as intraplaque hemorrhage, may have superior diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic values. Under current guidelines, unless an atheroma results in ≥50% stenosis, it is not considered the cause of a cerebrovascular event. This results in extensive and often unproductive diagnostic workup, prescription of ineffective medical therapy, and preclusion of patients from receiving revascularization procedures that have been shown to prevent recurrent cerebrovascular events in cases of ≥50% stenosis. A subset of embolic strokes of undetermined source, which account for up to 25% of all ischemic cerebrovascular events, are thought to be due to thromboembolic phenomena from undiagnosed plaque disruptions in nonstenotic arteries (<50% stenosis). Recently, it has been proposed to reclassify this subgroup of patients as symptomatic nonstenotic carotid if the carotid plaque ipsilateral to the cerebrovascular event presents with high-risk features including intraplaque hemorrhage, lipid-rich necrotic core, thinning/rupture of the fibrous cap, and ulceration. In this review, we first provide a historical overview of the chain of events and circumstances that resulted in the present management of carotid artery disease. Second, we embed the contemporary biomarkers of plaque vulnerability in a modern mechanistic paradigm of carotid plaque disruption and thromboembolization. Third, we review the clinically available imaging tools to detect these biomarkers, and how their use has started to shed light on the prevalence and natural history of this underdiagnosed condition. Fourth, we review recent clinical studies employing a contemporary definition of symptomatic nonstenotic carotid and discuss targeted treatments for this condition. Finally, we make a case to generate the much-needed high-level evidence to align the clinical management of patients with symptomatic nonstenotic carotid with a contemporary understanding of plaque disruption and thromboembolization.

Michelangelo’s unparalleled frescoes in the Sistine Chapel have been traditionally construed to represent the traditional, Roman Catholic interpretation of the Seven Days of Creation in the Book of Genesis and the Last Judgement. Indeed, in September 2018, Pope Francis I offered a benediction for the Vatican’s art treasures and for “those who contributed to the Church’s history through art.” A number of studies have suggested that Michelangelo concealed anatomic information about the human brain in his renderings of God and biblical prophets and saints. Was the anatomic content of these images purposeful or coincidental? Was the anatomy intentionally concealed? Is there a common pattern with symbolic connotations in the anatomic representations? Was Michelangelo sending an encoded message? In this study, we analyze the imagery in the Sistine frescoes in light of the literature surrounding Michelangelo’s artistry with a particular interest in the relationship between the certain purported anatomic depictions and details demonstrable using scientific and anatomic techniques available during the High Renaissance.

Background Although successful recanalization (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score 2b–3) can be achieved in >80% of patients experiencing stroke attributable to large‐vessel occlusion, up to 50% of patients may develop poor clinical outcomes (modified Rankin scale score at 90 days of 3–6), termed as futile recanalization (FR). The meta‐analysis aims to determine various risk factors associated with FR. Methods In February 2021, a comprehensive literature search on risk factors associated with FR was performed with keywords, including “stroke,” “thrombectomy,” “treatment outcome,” and “risk factors.” Their correlations with FR were evaluated using the random effect size meta‐analysis model. Results Twenty studies with 3037 patients were included with an FR rate of 51.0%. Our meta‐analyses showed that age (mean difference [MD], 5.6; 95% CI, 4.7–6.6), National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (MD, 4.2; 95% CI, 3.2–5.1), Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography (CT) Score (MD, −0.5; 95% CI, 0.8–0.3), hypertension (odds ratio [OR], 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3–1.9), systolic blood pressure (MD, 6.9; 95% CI, 3.6–8.7), atrial fibrillation (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2–1.8), IV tPA (tissue‐type plasminogen activator) (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5–0.8), puncture to recanalization time (MD, 9.6; 95% CI, 5.3–13.8), and time of onset to recanalization (MD, 32.1; 95% CI, 6.5–47.7) were significantly associated with FR ( P <0.001). Conclusions Age, admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score, comorbidities, including hypertension, systolic blood pressure, atrial fibrillation, and use of IV tPA, as well as time frames, including onset to recanalization and onset to arrival, were significant influencing factors for FR after mechanical thrombectomy. Future research on the mechanism underlying FR is warranted.

In the evaluation of embolic strokes of undetermined source, great emphasis is often placed on cardiovascular disease, namely on atrial fibrillation. Other pathophysiologic mechanisms, however, may also be involved. Carotid artery intraplaque hemorrhage (IPH)—the presence of blood components within an atheromatous plaque—has become increasingly recognized as a possible etiologic mechanism in some cryptogenic strokes. IPH is a marker of plaque instability and is associated with ipsilateral neurologic ischemic events, even in nonstenotic carotid plaques. As recognition of carotid IPH as an etiology of embolic strokes has grown, so too has the complexity with which such patients are evaluated and treated, particularly because overlaps exist in the risk factors for atrial fibrillation and IPH. In this article, we review what is currently known about carotid IPH and how this clinical entity should be approached in the context of the evaluation of embolic strokes of undetermined source.