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.

Early experience with venous arterialization for limb salvage in no-option patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is associated with adverse limb outcomes and increased mortality. However, a small subset of the CLTI population will have no feasible conventional methods of revascularization. In such cases, venous arterialization (VA) could provide an alternative for limb salvage. The objective of the present study was to review the outcomes of VA at our institution. METHODS: We performed a single-institution review of 41 patients who had been followed up prospectively and had undergone either superficial or deep VA. The data collected included patient demographics, comorbidities, VA technique (endovascular vs hybrid), and WIfI (wound, ischemia, and foot infection) limb staging. Data were collected at 1-month, 6-month, and 1-year intervals and included the following outcomes: patency, wound healing, major adverse limb events, major amputation, and death. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. RESULTS: The study group included 41 patients who had undergone successful open hybrid superficial or deep endovascular VA; 21 (51.2%) had undergone a purely endovascular procedure and 20 (48.8%), hybrid VA. The WIfI clinical stage was as follows: stage 4, 33 (80.5%); stage 3, 6 (14.6%); and stage 2, 1 (2.4%). Of the 41 patients, 24 (58.5%) had completed follow-up at 6 months and 16 (39%) at 1 year. At 1 year, the VA primary patency was 28.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15%-0.43%), primary assisted patency was 44.3% (95% CI, 0.27%-0.60%), and secondary patency was 67% (95% CI, 0.49%-0.80%). The complete wound healing rate was 2.7% (n = 1) at 1 month, 62.5% (n = 15) at 6 months, and 18.8% (n = 3) at 1 year. Overall wound healing at 1 year was 46.3% (n = 19). The number of major adverse limb events at 1 year was 15 (36.5%) and included 8 reinterventions (19.5%) and 7 major amputations (17%). The number of deaths was zero (0%) at 1 month and four (19%) at 6 months. Two deaths (9.5%) were attributed to COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019). No further deaths had occurred within 1 year. The limb salvage survival probability at 1 year was 81%. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that for a select subset of CLTI patients presenting with a high WIfI clinical limb stage and no viable options for conventional open or endovascular arterial revascularization, superficial and deep VA are feasible options to achieve limb salvage.

Influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of chronic limb-threatening ischemia.

The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted patients with conditions that are associated with significant morbidity, but might not be immediately life-threatening. Patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) were affected by delays in care, potentially increasing major limb amputations. This study sought to review strategies employed, and limb salvage outcomes reported, during the COVID-19 pandemic. We performed a literature review of the electronic database PubMed from December 2019 to December 2020. Articles subjected to analysis must have had a specific CLTI group before the pandemic to compare to the pandemic group. Case reports, case series, and non-CLTI comparisons were excluded. The literature search yielded 55 articles for review, of which 6 articles met criteria for analysis. The main classifications used for disease stratification included Rutherford, Fontaine, and SVS WIfI (Wound, Ischemia, Foot Infection). Overall, a decrease in vascular clinical volume was reported, ranging from 29% to 54%. A higher major limb amputation rate (2.6% to 32.2%) during the pandemic surge was reported in 5 of 6 publications. Four of 6 studies also reported minor amputations; 3 of these demonstrated an increase in minor amputations (7% to 17.7%). The CLTI population is vulnerable and it appears that both minor and major amputation rates increased in this population during the pandemic. The limited data available in CLTI patients during the COVID-19 pandemic and use of different stratifications schemes in areas impacted to variable extents prevent recommendations for the best treatment strategy. Further data are required to improve strategies for treating this population to minimize negative outcomes.