Zeller, Thomas

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.

AbstractObjectivesTo propose a classification system for characterizing angiographic femoropopliteal artery restenosis patterns associated with common endovascular modalities.BackgroundPeripheral artery disease is a worldwide issue affecting millions of people. Despite a myriad of endovascular technologies available to treat peripheral artery disease of the femoropopliteal arteries, restenosis remains a common failure mode. Characterizing common patterns of restenosis is important to discern the potential impact of baseline patient, lesion, and procedural characteristics, as well as treatment modalities on either the primary success or the failure patterns associated with restenosis.MethodsStudies included in the analysis were from previous core laboratory‐adjudicated femoropopliteal artery disease trials and registries reflecting a wide array of treatment modalities.ResultsFrom the subjects enrolled and analyzed, there were 403 total angiograms for analysis and adjudication. Target lesion revascularization images of the 32 validation cases were evaluated for index treated length, diameter stenosis, and lesion morphology characteristics. The following lesion types are proposed: Type 1 “Focal” pattern, which may be “Edge Proximal” or “Edge Distal” depending on location; a Type 2 “Multifocal” pattern which may also exhibit edge restenosis, but may also be “Edge Bilateral”; a Type 3 “Moderate” pattern and a Type 4 “Diffuse” pattern; and finally, a Type 5 “Occlusion”.ConclusionsA classification system that enables healthcare professionals to anticipate and describe failures following the index procedure, thereby impacting the choice of options for retreatment, may facilitate consistency and standardization within the heterogeneous field of endovascular device treatments for the femoropopliteal artery.