SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy, scientific quality, and clarity of responses generated by GPT-4o and Gemini to frequently asked patient questions related to carotid artery disease and carotid endarterectomy. METHODS: In total, 40 unique carotid endarterectomy-related questions were compiled from online sources and clinical experience. Each was entered into separate new sessions with GPT-4o and Gemini 2.5 Flash in Turkish, and responses were collected without modification. Notably, four blinded cardiovascular surgeons independently rated each answer (1–5 Likert scale) in three domains: Accuracy, Scientific Quality, and Clarity. Mean response lengths and domain scores were compared using appropriate paired tests. RESULTS: GPT-4o produced longer responses than Gemini (258.1±101.6 vs. 193.2±43.7 words; p<0.001). Overall, GPT-4o had higher Accuracy scores (4.33±0.39 vs. 4.16±0.33; p=0.04), with no significant differences in Scientific Quality or Clarity (p=0.377 and p=0.154, respectively). In rater-level analyses, Gemini scored higher in Clarity for one rater, whereas GPT-4o was superior in Accuracy and Scientific Quality for another. Overall mean scores were comparable (4.17±0.36 vs. 4.13±0.31; p=0.636). Physician referral was recommended in 62.5% of GPT-4o and 52.5% of Gemini (p=0.366). CONCLUSION: Both GPT-4o and Gemini provided "good"-quality responses to carotid endarterectomy patient questions, with GPT-4o showing a modest accuracy advantage, with no difference in other domains. Explicit disclaimers on both platforms underscore their supportive, not definitive, role in patient education. Physicians should remain the primary source for individualized decisions, and AI-generated information should always be verified.

Background: It is mostly challenging to ablate great saphenous vein (GSV) completely including the below-knee level. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of cyanoacrylate ablation (CAA) and catheter directed foam sclerotherapy (CDFS) combination in full length ablation of GSV with mid-term results. Materials and Methods: Patients undergoing CAA and CDFS of the GSV between January 2015 and December 2021 were reviewed. Preoperative and postoperative CEAP class, symptoms, recurrence, and Doppler findings were compared. Results: Postoperative overall closure rate at the first year was 99.5% ± 0.01 and at 5 years was found to be 93.8 ± 0.02%. Symptom free survival rate at the first year was 98.8% ± 0.01 and the cumulative 5-years symptom free survival rate was 73.0 ± 0.10%. Venous Clinical Severity Scores decreased from 5.9 ± 1.3 to 0.8 ± 0.4. Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire scores decreased from 19.7 ± 6.1 to 4.7 ± 1.8. Conclusion: When techniques are evaluated, CAA and CDFS combination (Glue + Foam) may be preferable as a simple and shorter application with full-length complete occlusion of GSV and less early postoperative discomfort. Long-term outcomes and cost analyses of larger series still need to be documented.

Background: Long-term real-world data after HeartMate 3 implantation remain limited, particularly regarding age-specific outcomes. We evaluated on-device survival and major adverse events across nearly a decade of experience. Methods: This retrospective single-center study included 215 patients undergoing primary HeartMate 3 implantation between January 2016 and October 2025. On-device mortality was analyzed using Aalen–Johansen cumulative incidence estimates with heart transplantation as a competing event; age-group differences were assessed using Fine–Gray regression. Transplant-censored Kaplan–Meier survival was examined secondarily, and mortality predictors were evaluated using multivariable Cox regression. Results: Median age was 53 years and median support was 603 days. At data cutoff, 149 patients remained alive on support, eight underwent transplantation, and 58 died on support. At 5 years, the cumulative incidences of on-device death and heart transplantation were 35.3% and 4.1%, respectively, with no significant age-group difference (Fine–Gray global p = 0.088). In the secondary transplant-censored Kaplan–Meier analysis, estimated survival was 87.4% at 30 days, 81.1% at 1 year, and 63.8% at 5 years. Higher preoperative creatinine was associated with mortality (HR, 1.93 per 1-mg/dL increase; 95% CI, 1.07–3.50; p = 0.029). No intrinsic pump thrombosis occurred. Conclusions: HeartMate 3 provided durable support with favorable long-term survival, although non-pump adverse events remained clinically relevant.

Background: Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) generate non-pulsatile circulation, rendering conventional oscillometric blood pressure measurements unreliable. Accurate monitoring is critical to prevent complications including stroke, pump thrombosis, and aortic regurgitation. Doppler-based measurement is widely used as a non-invasive alternative, yet its accuracy relative to invasive arterial pressure remains insufficiently characterized. Methods: In this prospective single-centre study, 32 adult continuous-flow LVAD patients underwent simultaneous invasive radial artery and Doppler blood pressure measurements twice daily over three consecutive days (192 paired readings; Day 3: n = 27 due to technical recording issues). Pulsatility was assessed by means of peripheral pulse palpation and transthoracic echocardiography. Spearman’s rho, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and Bland–Altman analysis were applied. Results: Median invasive MAP was 73.0 [IQR 66–80] mmHg and median Doppler pressure was 75.0 [IQR 70–80] mmHg. Doppler measurements demonstrated strong-to-excellent correlation with invasive MAP across all time points (r = 0.78–0.91, p < 0.001), with no significant paired differences (all p > 0.05). Bland–Altman analysis revealed a bias of −0.35 mmHg with limits of agreement of −9.10 to +8.40 mmHg, within the accepted ±10 mmHg threshold. Correlation with systolic pressure was lower (r = 0.66–0.89, p < 0.001), with a positive bias of +13.47 mmHg and wide limits of agreement (+1.28 to +25.67 mmHg), indicating clinically unacceptable agreement. Conclusions: Doppler-derived blood pressure may provide a reliable estimate of invasive MAP in continuous-flow LVAD patients, whereas its utility for systolic pressure estimation appears limited. Doppler measurement represents a practical, non-invasive tool for routine MAP monitoring in both inpatient and outpatient settings.