Society for Vascular Surgery appropriate use criteria for management of intermittent claudication.

The Society for Vascular Surgery appropriate use criteria (AUC) for the management of intermittent claudication were created using the RAND appropriateness method, a validated and standardized method that combines the best available evidence from medical literature with expert opinion, using a modified Delphi process. These criteria serve as a framework on which individualized patient and clinician shared decision-making can grow. These criteria are not absolute. AUC should not be interpreted as a requirement to administer treatments rated as appropriate (benefit outweighs risk). Nor should AUC be interpreted as a prohibition of treatments rated as inappropriate (risk outweighs benefit). Clinical situations will occur in which moderating factors, not included in these AUC, will shift the appropriateness level of a treatment for an individual patient. Proper implementation of AUC requires a description of those moderating patient factors. For scenarios with an indeterminate rating, clinician judgement combined with the best available evidence should determine the treatment strategy. These scenarios require mechanisms to track the treatment decisions and outcomes. AUC should be revisited periodically to ensure that they remain relevant. The panelists rated 2280 unique scenarios for the treatment of intermittent claudication (IC) in the aortoiliac, common femoral, and femoropopliteal segments in the round 2 rating. Of these, only nine (0.4%) showed a disagreement using the interpercentile range adjusted for symmetry formula, indicating an exceptionally high degree of consensus among the panelists. Post hoc, the term "inappropriate" was replaced with the phrase "risk outweighs benefit." The term "appropriate" was also replaced with "benefit outweighs risk." The key principles for the management of IC reflected within these AUC are as follows. First, exercise therapy is the preferred initial management strategy for all patients with IC. Second, for patients who have not completed exercise therapy, invasive therapy might provide net a benefit for selected patients with IC who are nonsmokers, are taking optimal medical therapy, are considered to have a low physiologic and technical risk, and who are experiencing severe lifestyle limitations and/or a short walking distance. Third, considering the long-term durability of the currently available technology, invasive interventions for femoropopliteal disease should be reserved for patients with severe lifestyle limitations and a short walking distance. Fourth, in the common femoral segment, open common femoral endarterectomy will provide greater net benefit than endovascular intervention for the treatment of IC. Finally, in the infrapopliteal segment, invasive intervention for the treatment of IC is of unclear benefit and could be harmful.

Consensus-based perioperative protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, quaternary-care facilities continue to provide care for patients in need of urgent and emergent invasive procedures. Perioperative protocols are needed to streamline care for these patients notwithstanding capacity and resource constraints. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel was assembled at the University of California, San Francisco, with 26 leaders across 10 academic departments, including 7 department chairpersons, the chief medical officer, the chief operating officer, infection control officers, nursing leaders, and resident house staff champions. An epidemiologist, an ethicist, and a statistician were also consulted. A modified two-round, blinded Delphi method based on 18 agree/disagree statements was used to build consensus. Significant disagreement for each statement was tested using a one-sided exact binomial test against an expected outcome of 95% consensus using a significance threshold of p < 0.05. Final triage protocols were developed with unblinded group-level discussion. RESULTS: Overall, 15 of 18 statements achieved consensus in the first round of the Delphi method; the 3 statements with significant disagreement (p < 0.01) were modified and iteratively resubmitted to the expert panel to achieve consensus. Consensus-based protocols were developed using unblinded multidisciplinary panel discussions. The final algorithms 1) quantified outbreak level, 2) triaged patients based on acuity, 3) provided a checklist for urgent/emergent invasive procedures, and 4) created a novel scoring system for the allocation of personal protective equipment. In particular, the authors modified the American College of Surgeons three-tiered triage system to incorporate more urgent cases, as are often encountered in neurosurgery and spine surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Urgent and emergent invasive procedures need to be performed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The consensus-based protocols in this study may assist healthcare providers to optimize perioperative care during the pandemic.

Impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on an academic vascular practice and a multidisciplinary limb preservation program.

With the aggressive resource conservation necessary to face the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, vascular surgeons have faced unique challenges in managing the health of their high-risk patients. An early analysis of patient outcomes after pandemic-related practice changes suggested that patients with chronic limb threatening ischemia have been presenting with more severe foot infections and are more likely to require major limb amputation compared with 6 months previously. As our society and health care system adapt to the new changes required in the post-coronavirus disease 2019 era, it is critical that we pay special attention to the most vulnerable subsets of patients with vascular disease, particularly those with chronic limb threatening ischemia and limited access to care.