Zeebregts, Clark J.

Abstract Introduction Revascularization to prevent limb loss is not feasible or represents a very high risk in a significant proportion of patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI). No standard definition currently exists to define this population of patients. The aim of this study was to develop a consensus-based, multidomain definition to improve clinical assessment and reporting of studies in people with ‘no option’ (NO) or ‘poor option’ (PO) CLTI. Methods A modified Delphi process was conducted with 164 specialists from 30 countries. Two iterative survey rounds were used to reach consensus, defined as ≥70% agreement with a score of ≥7 on a nine-point scale. Results Some 164 international vascular specialists participated in the study, averaging 19 years of experience. A multidomain framework including arterial disease anatomy, biology, risk, function, and context (ABRFC) achieved 83% consensus. A ‘desert foot’ was defined as the absence of distal arterial revascularization targets on advanced non-invasive imaging, invasive digital subtraction angiography, and at least one failed endovascular revascularization attempt (81.6% agreement). Inadequate autogenous bypass conduit was defined as the lack of usable autologous vein across all four limbs (85% agreement). Patients were classified as NO for revascularization if they present with ‘desert foot’, prohibitive medical risk, a non-functional limb, or in those patients who refused arterial revascularization. PO revascularization patients combined factors such as severe infection, lack of autologous vein, or treatment non-compliance (72.1% agreement). Conclusion This consensus study established a structured, expert-validated definition of no option or poor option for revascularisation of patients with CLTI. The multidomain ABRFC framework provides a foundation for standardized clinical assessment, trial design, and future guideline development.

Despite the publication of several national/international guidelines, the optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) remains controversial. This article compares 3 recently released guidelines (the 2020 German–Austrian, the 2021 European Stroke Organization [ESO], and the 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery [SVS] guidelines) vs the 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) guidelines regarding the optimal management of AsxCS patients. The 2017 ESVS guidelines defined specific imaging/clinical parameters that may identify patient subgroups at high future stroke risk and recommended that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) should or carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be considered for these individuals. The 2020 German–Austrian guidelines provided similar recommendations with the 2017 ESVS Guidelines. The 2021 ESO Guidelines also recommended CEA for AsxCS patients at high risk for stroke on best medical treatment (BMT), but recommended against routine use of CAS in these patients. Finally, the SVS guidelines provided a strong recommendation for CEA+BMT vs BMT alone for low-surgical risk patients with >70% AsxCS. Thus, the ESVS, German–Austrian, and ESO guidelines concurred that all AsxCS patients should receive risk factor modification and BMT, but CEA should or CAS may also be considered for certain AsxCS patient subgroups at high risk for future ipsilateral ischemic stroke.