Ischemic heart disease is the largest cause of death worldwide and the most common cause of heart failure (HF). The incidence and prevalence of HF are increasing owing to an aging population and improvements in the acute cardiac care of previously fatal conditions such as myocardial infarction. Strategies to improve outcomes in patients with ischemic systolic HF are urgently needed. There is systematic underutilization of testing for coronary artery disease in patients with HF, and revascularization is performed in an even smaller minority despite evidence for reduced mortality with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) over medical therapy in the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure Extension Study. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a less-invasive approach to coronary revascularization; however, the recent Revascularization for Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction (REVIVED)-British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS2) trial failed to demonstrate a benefit of PCI compared with that of medical therapy in patients with ischemic systolic HF. The comparative effectiveness of PCI and CABG for patients with ischemic systolic HF remains unknown, particularly in the era of contemporary medical therapy. In this review, we discuss the benefit of CABG in ischemic systolic HF, its underutilization, and the unmet clinical need. We also review the recent REVIVED-BCIS2 trial comparing PCI to medical therapy, as well as upcoming randomized controlled trials of PCI for ischemic systolic HF and persistent evidence gaps that will exist despite anticipated data from ongoing trials. There remains a need for an adequately powered randomized controlled trials to establish the comparative clinical effectiveness of PCI vs CABG in ischemic systolic HF in the era of contemporary revascularization approaches and medical therapy, as well as trials of coronary revascularization in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction or less severe forms of left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

UNASSIGNED: About half of patients with ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) have multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD). Our aim was to provide a quantitative comparison of single-stage complete revascularization during the index revascularization versus deferred staged complete revascularization in STEMI patients with MVD.
UNASSIGNED: All studies evaluating patients with STEMI and MVD were included. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization. Secondary endpoints were cardiovascular death, acute kidney injury and trial defined major bleeding.
UNASSIGNED: Eight studies and 2256 patients with STEMI and MVD were included. No difference was evident in the rate of the primary composite endpoint among the study group (Risk Ratio 0.95; 95% CI 0.71-1.27, p = 0.74), while meta-regression showed a significant interaction with drug eluting stent (DES) use (Coefficient -0.005; 95% CI -0.01 to -0.001; p = 0.007). Higher rates of cardiovascular (CV) death were found in the immediate complete revascularization group (5.0% vs 2.6%; Risk Ratio 0.39; 95% CI 0.25-0.62; p < 0.01).
UNASSIGNED: Our analysis documented similar clinical outcomes with either single-stage immediate complete revascularization and delayed staged complete revascularization. Secondary analyses suggest that an increase in cardiovascular death might be expected with single-stage percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). While new randomized trials on the topic are ongoing, revascularization can be personalized and guided by the acute clinical setting, patients\'-related factors and workflow logistics.

Significant left main coronary artery disease is a very high-risk subgroup of coronary artery disease that is a crucial indicator of heightened morbidity and mortality rates. Despite its clinical significance, uncertainties persist regarding the optimal management strategy for patients, particularly given its phenotypic variations. Existing evidence-based guidelines offer insights into revascularization options, yet questions remain regarding long-term prognoses and clinical outcomes when comparing percutaneous coronary intervention to coronary artery bypass grafting. This comprehensive review aims to provide an in-depth analysis of contemporary strategies for the diagnosis, assessment, and treatment of left main coronary artery disease. By synthesizing current literature and addressing the evolving landscape of revascularization modalities, this review seeks to contribute valuable insights for clinicians and researchers grappling with the complexities of managing left main coronary artery disease.

UNASSIGNED: Ischemic heart disease (IHD) is a major global health issue and a leading cause of death. This study compares the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the management of IHD, focusing on their impact on revascularization, myocardial infarction (MI), and post-procedural stroke. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of PCI and CABG in treating IHD based on an exhaustive literature review of the past 5 years, emphasizing recent advancements and outcomes in IHD management.
UNASSIGNED: A comprehensive literature review analyzed 32 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) retrieved from databases such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. The study specifically assessed the incidences of revascularization, stroke, and MI in patients treated with either PCI or CABG. The comparison between CABG and PCI exclusively focused on lesions with a SYNTAX score exceeding 32.
UNASSIGNED: Our findings highlight CABG\'s significant efficacy over PCI in reducing revascularization and MI. The aggregated Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) value for revascularization was 1.85 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.65 - 2.07), signifying CABG\'s advantage. Additionally, CABG demonstrated superior performance in diminishing MI occurrences (M-H = 2.71, 95% CI: 1.13 - 6.53). In contrast, PCI was more effective in reducing stroke (M-H = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.60 - 1.10).
UNASSIGNED: The study confirms CABG\'s superiority in reducing revascularization and MI in IHD patients, highlighting PCI\'s effectiveness in reducing stroke risk. These findings underscore the importance of personalized treatment strategies in IHD management and emphasize the need for ongoing research and evidence-based guidelines to aid in treatment selection for IHD patients.

BACKGROUND: Knee malalignment can increase the risk of osteoarthritis. Osteotomies can correct limb deformities, but they come with the risk of complications such as cortical hinge fracture, hardware failure, pain syndrome, and infection. Vascular injury is rare, but it can lead to bleeding, limb ischemia, and swelling. If revascularization is delayed for over 12 h, it can result in poor outcomes. The work has been reported in line with the SCARE criteria.
METHODS: A 41-year-old female underwent a lateral close-wedge distal femoral osteotomy. Postoperatively, no distal pulse was detected. An emergency vascular surgery consultation revealed popliteal vein penetration and popliteal artery thrombosis, probably during pin penetration. Revascularization was performed, and the patient was discharged without complications. At the three-year follow-up, the patient was in good health and without complications.
CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of the femoral artery and vein\'s proximity to the apex of the wedge is crucial in lateral close wedge distal femoral osteotomy. Despite vascular injury with an oscillating saw, it can happen during guide pin insertion. Although Intraoperative massive bleeding can show vascular injury, lack of it was not a protective factor.
CONCLUSIONS: During the process of pin insertion, it is important to ensure that the pin\'s orientation is directly lateral to the medial. This should be checked using the C-Arm by obtaining AP, Lat, and Oblique views. To check for intraoperative bleeding, the tourniquet should be deflated. Once the procedure is complete, it is important to check for any vascular injury by examining distal pulses and limb perfusion carefully, particularly in the recovery room.

Microorganisms, physical factors such as temperature or mechanical injury, and chemical factors such as free monomers from composite resin are the main causes of dental pulp diseases. Current clinical treatment methods for pulp diseases include the root canal therapy, vital pulp therapy and regenerative endodontic therapy. Regenerative endodontic therapy serves the purpose of inducing the regeneration of new functional pulp tissues through autologous revascularization or pulp tissue engineering. This article first discusses the current clinical methods and reviews strategies as well as the research outcomes regarding the pulp regeneration. Then the in vivo models, the prospects and challenges for regenerative endodontic therapy were further discussed.

UNASSIGNED: Moyamoya disease (MMD) is a condition characterized by progressive narrowing of arteries in the brain and abnormal development of small collateral vessels. It is commonly found in East Asia but has never been reported in Palestine.
UNASSIGNED: A 2-year-old female, part of a twin born to non-consanguineous parents, presented with recurring seizures and developmental regression. The physical examination revealed signs of hypotonia, reflex abnormalities, and bilateral Babinski signs. Comprehensive laboratory tests and imaging investigations confirmed the diagnosis of MMD, marking this patient as the reported case in Palestine.
UNASSIGNED: The diagnostic criteria for this condition were revised in 2021 to focus on findings seen in angiography and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) scans. MMD has not been curative so far, and the management is focused on preventing complications, sometimes with surgical revascularization, including its different approaches: direct, indirect, and a combination of both.
UNASSIGNED: This case highlights the importance of identifying MMD in regions where it is uncommon to be diagnosed. It emphasizes the need for diagnosis and appropriate intervention to reduce complications.

UNASSIGNED: The purpose of this review and meta-analysis is to determine the clinical outcome differences between patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia who underwent direct versus indirect angiosome revascularization using either the surgical or endovascular approach.
UNASSIGNED: The data sources used for article selection included PubMed, Embase/Medline, Cochrane reviews, and Web of Science (All studies were in English and included up to September 2023). All articles included were comparative in design, including retrospective, prospective, and randomized controlled trials that compared the clinical outcomes between direct and indirect angiosome-guided revascularization in chronic limb-threatening ischemia. A random-effects model was used to determine the measure of association between direct revascularization and amputation-free survival, wound healing, and overall survival. Publication bias was assessed with both Begg\'s and Egger\'s test, and heterogeneity was calculated using an I2.
UNASSIGNED: Data from 9 articles were analyzed and reported in this review. Direct revascularization was associated with improved amputation-free survival (odds ratio [OR]=2.632, confidence interval [CI]: 1.625, 4.265), binary wound healing (OR=2.262, CI: 1.518, 3.372), and overall survival (OR=1.757, CI: 1.176, 2.625). Time until wound healed was not associated with either direct or indirect revascularization (Standard Mean Difference [SMD]=-2.15, p=0.11). There was a low risk of bias across all studies according to the RoB 2.0 tool.
UNASSIGNED: Direct revascularization is associated with improved amputation-free survival, overall survival, and wound healing in chronic limb-threatening ischemic patients compared to the indirect approach.
CONCLUSIONS: Preservation of the lower extremity is critical for preventing mortality and maintaining independence. The benefit of angiosome-guided revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia remains controversial. The authors of this article aim to review the current literature and compare direct and indirect angiosome-guided intervention for preserving the lower extremity. Current findings suggest direct angiosome-guided intervention reduces amputation rates and improves survival; however, many trials neglect to address the multifactorial approach needed in wound care management.

Background: In vascular medicine, peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and diabetic foot syndrome (DFS) are often considered synonymous with respect to the need for revascularization. In PAD patients, clinical symptoms reflect the degree of atherosclerotic disease, since peripheral innervation, including pain sensation, is not usually compromised. In DFS patients, however, symptoms of relevant foot ischemia are often absent and progression of ischemia goes unnoticed owing to diabetic polyneuropathy, the loss of nociception being the main trigger for foot ulcers. This review analyzes the fundamental differences between PAD and DFS against the background of polyneuropathy. Methods: The literature research for the 2014 revision of the German evidence-based S3-PAD-guidelines was extended to 2023. Results: Vascular examination is imperative for both, PAD and DFS. Stage-dependent revascularization is of utmost importance in PAD patients, especially those suffering from critical limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). Successful therapy of DFS goes further, including infection and metabolic control, wound management, offloading the foot and lifelong prophylaxis in the course of a multidisciplinary treatment concept. Revascularization is not needed in all cases of DFS. Conclusions: There are fundamental differences between PAD and DFS with respect to pathophysiology, the anatomical distribution of arterial occlusive processes, the clinical symptoms, the value of diagnostic tools such as the ankle-brachial index, and classification. Also, therapeutic concepts differ substantially between the two patient populations.

OBJECTIVE: Atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis may cause hypertension, chronic kidney disease and heart failure, but large randomized control trials to date have shown no major additional benefit of renal revascularization over optimal medical management. However, these trials did not consider outcomes specifically in relation to clinical presentations. Given that atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis is a heterogenous condition, measures of success likely differ according to the clinical presentation. Our retrospective study objectives were to determine the effects of revascularization when applied to specific clinical presentations and after careful multi-disciplinary team review.
METHODS: All patients presenting to our centre and its referring hospitals with radiological findings of at least one renal artery stenosis > 50% between January 2015 and January 2020 were reviewed at the renovascular multi-disciplinary team meeting with revascularization considered in accordance with international guidelines, notably for patients with anatomically significant renal artery stenosis, adequately sized kidney and presentations with any of; deteriorating kidney function, heart failure syndrome, or uncontrollable hypertension. Optimal medical management was recommended for all patients which included lipid lowering agents, anti-platelets and anti-hypertensives targeting blood pressure ≤ 130/80 mmHg. The effect of revascularization was assessed according to the clinical presentation; blood pressure and number of agents in those with renovascular hypertension, delta glomerular filtration rate in those with ischaemic nephropathy and heart failure re-admissions in those with heart failure syndromes.
RESULTS: During this 5-year period, 127 patients with stenosis ≥ 50% were considered by the multidisciplinary team, with 57 undergoing revascularization (17 primarily for severe hypertension, 25 deteriorating kidney function, 6 heart failure syndrome and 9 for very severe anatomical stenosis). Seventy-nine percent of all revascularized patients had a positive outcome specific to their clinical presentation, with 82% of those with severe hypertension improving blood pressure control, 72% with progressive ischaemic nephropathy having attenuated GFR decline, and no further heart failure admissions in those with heart failure. Seventy-eight percent of patients revascularized for high grade stenosis alone had better blood pressure control with 55% also manifesting renal functional benefits.
CONCLUSIONS: Multi-disciplinary team discussion successfully identified a group of patients more likely to benefit from revascularization based on 3 key factors: clinical presentation, severity of the renal artery lesion and the state of the kidney beyond the stenotic lesion. In this way, a large proportion of patients can clinically improve after revascularization if their outcomes are considered according to the nature of their clinical presentation.