Global Vascular Guidelines on the Management of Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia.

GUIDELINE SUMMARY: Chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is associated with mortality, amputation, and impaired quality of life. These Global Vascular Guidelines (GVG) are focused on definition, evaluation, and management of CLTI with the goals of improving evidence-based care and highlighting critical research needs. The term CLTI is preferred over critical limb ischemia, as the latter implies threshold values of impaired perfusion rather than a continuum. CLTI is a clinical syndrome defined by the presence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) in combination with rest pain, gangrene, or a lower limb ulceration >2 weeks duration. Venous, traumatic, embolic, and nonatherosclerotic etiologies are excluded. All patients with suspected CLTI should be referred urgently to a vascular specialist. Accurately staging the severity of limb threat is fundamental, and the Society for Vascular Surgery Threatened Limb Classification system, based on grading of Wounds, Ischemia, and foot Infection (WIfI) is endorsed. Objective hemodynamic testing, including toe pressures as the preferred measure, is required to assess CLTI. Evidence-based revascularization (EBR) hinges on three independent axes: Patient risk, Limb severity, and ANatomic complexity (PLAN). Average-risk and high-risk patients are defined by estimated procedural and 2-year all-cause mortality. The GVG proposes a new Global Anatomic Staging System (GLASS), which involves defining a preferred target artery path (TAP) and then estimating limb-based patency (LBP), resulting in three stages of complexity for intervention. The optimal revascularization strategy is also influenced by the availability of autogenous vein for open bypass surgery. Recommendations for EBR are based on best available data, pending level 1 evidence from ongoing trials. Vein bypass may be preferred for average-risk patients with advanced limb threat and high complexity disease, while those with less complex anatomy, intermediate severity limb threat, or high patient risk may be favored for endovascular intervention. All patients with CLTI should be afforded best medical therapy including the use of antithrombotic, lipid-lowering, antihypertensive, and glycemic control agents, as well as counseling on smoking cessation, diet, exercise, and preventive foot care. Following EBR, long-term limb surveillance is advised. The effectiveness of nonrevascularization therapies (eg, spinal stimulation, pneumatic compression, prostanoids, and hyperbaric oxygen) has not been established. Regenerative medicine approaches (eg, cell, gene therapies) for CLTI should be restricted to rigorously conducted randomizsed clinical trials. The GVG promotes standardization of study designs and end points for clinical trials in CLTI. The importance of multidisciplinary teams and centers of excellence for amputation prevention is stressed as a key health system initiative.

Safety of endovascular treatment of carotid artery stenosis compared with surgical treatment: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Since publication of previous meta-analyses comparing endovascular and surgical treatment of patients with carotid artery stenosis, two further large-scale trials have been conducted, almost doubling the number of patients available for analysis. Therefore, it is justified to update these meta-analyses. METHODS: Relevant trials were identified by a search of the literature using an electronic database. Trials with a nonrandomized patient allocation were not included. We focused on events within 30 days after intervention and made two sets of analysis: one with all trials and one with large trials exclusively including symptomatic patients. RESULTS: Only Endartérectomie Versus Angioplastie chez les patients ayant une Sténose carotide Symptomatique Serrée (EVA3S) and Stent-Supported Percutaneous Angioplasty of the Carotid Artery versus Endarterectomy (SPACE) were identified to be included in the updated meta-analysis. In total, 2985 patients were included in eight trials of which 89% were symptomatic. In contrast to previous analyses, this meta-analysis found a significant difference between the odds ratios of any stroke or death within 30 days after treatment with a disadvantage of endovascular treatment when analysing all trials (odds ratio [OR], 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.83; P = .024). Significant heterogeneity was found for this analysis (P = .03). The increase of the odds of suffering from disabling stroke or death in the endovascular compared with the surgical group was not significant in the analysis of all trials (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.92-2.04; P = .12); no heterogeneity was found for this analysis (P = .27). In the analysis of the large trials with symptomatic patients, the OR for the endpoint any stroke or death was 1.29 (95% CI 0.94-1.76; P = .11); with a hint for heterogeneity (P = .10). For the endpoint disabling stroke or death, the OR was 1.33 (95% CI 0.89-1.93; P =.17) without any heterogeneity (P = .58). CONCLUSION: The expressiveness of this meta-analysis is limited by the heterogeneity of some tests. The main result is that surgical treatment still remains the gold standard for treatment of patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis, who do not have an increased surgical risk. Carotid artery stenting is neither safer than nor as safe as carotid endarterectomy in large clinical trials when short-term stroke and death rates are taken into account. Further recruitment into ongoing randomized trials is strongly recommended.

Fibrinogen and high-sensitive C-reactive protein as serologic predictors for perioperative cerebral microembolic lesions after carotid endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Neurologic deficit caused by cerebral ischemia defines the outcome of carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Although few patients have clinically evident neurologic deficit, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) presents a number of cases with ischemic brain lesions. This study should elucidate preoperative risk factors for perioperative microemboli that cause brain infarction. METHODS: We studied 183 patients (58 women, 69.2 +/-12.7 years; 125 men, 69.3 +/- 8.9 years) with high-degree carotid artery stenosis. DWI was performed before and after CEA to analyze new cerebral ischemia. Blood samples were obtained before operation to measure fibrinogen and C-reactive protein (CRP), and preoperative high-sensitive CRP (hsCRP) was analyzed in 30 consecutive patients. RESULTS: Postoperative DWI revealed new ipsilateral ischemic lesions in 41 patients (22.4%), and eight (4.4%) showed new neurologic deficit. Preoperative fibrinogen levels were higher in patients with new lesions (397.6 mg/dL +/- 104.7 mg/dL) than in those without (324.7 mg/dL +/- 74.2 mg/dL, P < .001). Preoperative levels of hsCRP were also higher in patients with new lesions (7.9 mg/dL +/- 5.2 mg/dL) than in those without (2.8 mg/dL +/- 2.6 mg/dL, P = .004). Significant association was found between fibrinogen and CRP (Spearman rho = 0.402; P < .001) as well as hsCRP (Spearman rho = 0.603, P = .003). No association was found between postoperative lesions and CRP (P = .833). CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrates that preoperative levels of fibrinogen and hsCRP are independent determinants for new periprocedural cerebral ischemic lesions caused by microembolic events. There is still not sufficient evidence to recommend measurement of CRP as a prognostic marker for perioperative cerebral lesion.