Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has been associated with a high incidence of arterial and venous thrombotic complications. However, thromboembolic events in unusual sites such as limb and visceral arterial ischemia are reported rarely in the literature. Herein, we describe a rare case of a patient with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection who experienced severe abdominal pain during the hospitalization and presented simultaneously renal artery, splenic artery and vein as well as aortic thrombi despite prophylactic antithrombotic treatment. Information about his follow-up post discharge is also provided. This case report raises significant clinical implications regarding the correct dose of antithrombotic treatment during the acute phase of the severe COVID-19 infection and highlights the need for incessant vigilance in order to detect thrombosis at unusual sites as a possible diagnosis when severe abdominal pain is present in severe COVID-19 patients.

Aim: The Stroke Units Necessity for Patients (SUN4P) project aims to provide essential data on stroke healthcare in Greece. Herein, we present results on established quality indicators and outcomes after first-ever stroke occurrences. Methods: This prospective multicenter study included consecutive patients admitted to nine hospitals across Greece in 2019–2021. Descriptive statistics were used to present patients’ characteristics, key performance measures and stroke outcomes. Results: Among 892 patients, 755 had ischemic stroke (IS) (mean age 75.6 ± 13.6, 48.7% males) and 137 had hemorrhagic stroke (HS) (mean age 75.8 ± 13.2, 57.7% males). Of those, 15.4% of IS and 8% of HS patients were treated in the acute stroke unit (ASU) and 20.7% and 33.8% were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) or high-dependency unit (HDU), respectively. A total of 35 (4.6%) out of 125 eligible patients received intravenous alteplase with a door-to needle time of 60 min (21–90). The time to first scan for IS patients was 60 min (31–105) with 53.2% undergoing a CT scan within 60 min post presentation. Furthermore, 94.4% were discharged on antiplatelets, 69.8% on lipid-lowering therapy and 61.6% on antihypertensives. Oral anticoagulants (OAC) were initiated in 73.2% of the 153 IS patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Among the 687 IS patients who survived, 85.4% were discharged home, 12% were transferred to rehabilitation centers, 1.2% to nursing homes and 1.3% to another hospital. Conclusions: The SUN4P Registry is the first study to provide data from a prospectively collected cohort of consecutive patients from nine representative national hospitals. It represents an important step in the evaluation and improvement of the quality of acute stroke care in Greece.

The aim of this study was to measure the one-year total cost of strokes and to investigate the value of stroke care, defined as cost per QALY. The study population included 892 patients with first-ever acute strokes, hemorrhagic strokes, and ischemic strokes, (ICD-10 codes: I61, I63, and I64) admitted within 48 h of symptoms onset to nine public hospitals located in six cities. We conducted a bottom-up cost analysis from the societal point of view. All cost components including direct medical costs, productivity losses due to morbidity and mortality, and informal care costs were considered. We used an annual time horizon, including all costs for 2021, irrespective of the time of disease onset. The average cost (direct and indirect) was extrapolated in order to estimate the national annual burden associated with stroke. We estimated the total cost of stroke in Greece at EUR 343.1 mil. a year in 2021, (EUR 10,722/patient or EUR 23,308 per QALY). Out of EUR 343.1 mil., 53.3% (EUR 182.9 mil.) consisted of direct healthcare costs, representing 1.1% of current health expenditure in 2021. Overall, productivity losses were calculated at EUR 160.2 mil. The mean productivity losses were estimated to be 116 work days with 55.1 days lost due to premature retirement and absenteeism from work, 18.5 days lost due to mortality, and 42.4 days lost due to informal caregiving by family members. This study highlights the burden of stroke and underlines the need for stakeholders and policymakers to re-organize stroke care and promote interventions that have been proven cost-effective.

The aim of this study was to measure one-year total cost of stroke and to investigate the value of stroke care, defined as cost per QALY. The study population included 892 patients with first ever acute stroke, hemorrhagic and ischemic, (ICD-10 codes: I61, I63 and I64) admitted within 48 hours of symptoms onset to nine public hospitals located in six cities. We conducted a bottom-up cost analysis from the societal point of view. All cost components including direct medical costs, productivity losses due to morbidity and mortality and informal care costs were considered. We used an annual time horizon, including all costs for 2021 irrespective of the time of disease onset. The average cost (direct and indirect) was extrapolated in order to estimate the national annual burden associated with stroke. We estimated the total cost of stroke in Greece at €343.1 mil a year in 2021, (€10,722/patient or €23,308 per QALY). Out of €343.1 mil., 53.3% (€182.9 mil) consisted direct healthcare cost representing 1.1% of current health expenditure in 2021. Overall, productivity losses were calculated at €160.2 mil. The mean productivity losses were estimated to 116 work days with 55.1 days lost due to premature retirement and absenteeism from work, 18.5 days lost due to mortality and 42.4 days lost due to informal caregiving by family members.This study highlights the burden of stroke and underlines the need for stakeholders and policy makers to re-organize stroke care and promote interventions that have been proved as cost-effective

The coexistence of cancer and severe aortic stenosis (AS) is increasing as a result of population aging and substantial improvements in cancer survival. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has transformed the management of AS; however, patients with active malignancy or a history of cancer remain markedly under-represented in pivotal randomized trials. This under-representation has resulted in persistent uncertainty regarding patient selection, risk stratification, and the expected benefit of TAVI in this growing and clinically heterogeneous population. This review provides a comprehensive and contemporary synthesis of the evidence on TAVI in patients with cancer, integrating cardiovascular (CV), oncologic, and geriatric perspectives. Available data on epidemiological overlap, cancer-specific procedural challenges, and short- and long-term outcomes following TAVI are critically examined, with particular emphasis on distinctions between active cancer and cancer survivorship. Key modifiers of risk and benefit—including prior thoracic radiotherapy, competing thrombotic and bleeding risk, immunosuppression, frailty, sarcopenia, and nutritional status—are discussed in detail. Limitations of conventional surgical risk scores in oncology populations are highlighted, underscoring the need for individualized assessment beyond traditional CV metrics. Across registries and meta-analyses, TAVI is associated with high procedural success and comparable short-term outcomes in patients with and without cancer. Excess mortality observed during mid- and long-term follow-up is driven predominantly by non-CV causes related to malignancy rather than valve-related complications. Importantly, patients with cancer in remission demonstrate outcomes similar to those of non-cancer populations, whereas prognosis in active cancer is strongly influenced by disease stage, biology, and competing risks. Overall, cancer diagnosis alone should not preclude consideration of TAVI. Optimal management requires multidisciplinary, goal-oriented decision-making that integrates oncologic prognosis, functional status, and patients’ priorities. As cancer survivorship continues to expand, prospective studies, integrated risk stratification tools, and closer alignment between cardio-oncology and structural heart programs are essential to guide evidence-based and equitable care.