Schneider, Peter A.

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.

Acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis and chronic iliofemoral venous obstruction cause substantial patient harm and are increasingly managed with endovascular venous interventions, including percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy and stent placement. However, studies of these treatment elements have not been designed and reported with sufficient rigor to support confident conclusions about their clinical utility. In this project, the Trustworthy consensus-based statement approach was utilized to develop, via a structured process, consensus-based statements to guide future investigators of venous interventions. Thirty statements were drafted to encompass major topics relevant to venous study description and design, safety outcome assessment, efficacy outcome assessment, and topics specific to evaluating percutaneous venous thrombectomy and stent placement. Using modified Delphi techniques for consensus achievement, a panel of physician experts in vascular disease voted on the statements and succeeded in reaching the predefined threshold of >80% consensus (agreement or strong agreement) on all 30 statements. It is hoped that the guidance from these statements will improve standardization, objectivity, and patient-centered relevance in the reporting of clinical outcomes of endovascular interventions for acute iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis and chronic iliofemoral venous obstruction in clinical studies and thereby enhance venous patient care.

Introduction: The relative performance of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) among Medicare beneficiaries in routine clinical practice has not been established. Objective: To compare the performance of CAS relative to CEA among Medicare beneficiaries. Methods: We linked Medicare data (2000-2009) to the Society for Vascular Surgery’s Vascular Registry (SVS-VR; 2005-2008) and to the NCDR® Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy Registry (CARE; 2006-2008/9). Medicare patients aged ≥66 years undergoing CAS or CEA were followed from the procedure date for the outcomes of death, stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), peri-procedural myocardial infarction (MI) or a composite endpoint for these outcomes. We derived high-dimensional propensity scores using registry and Medicare data to control for patient-level factors and adjusted for provider-level factors including past-year CAS/CEA physician and hospital volume, hospital ownership, teaching affiliation, and hospital size in a Cox regression model comparing CAS to CEA. Results: Among 5,254 SVS-VR (1,999 CAS and 3,255 CEA) and 4,055 CARE (2,824 CAS and 1,231 CEA) patients, CAS patients were more often at higher surgical risk (SVS-VR: 96.7% vs. 44.5%; CARE: 71.3% vs. 44.7%) and had a higher comorbidity burden. Crude outcome risks for death and stroke/TIA were lower for CEA. Adjusting for patient-level factors drove estimates downwards for CAS relative to CEA but only after further adjustment for provider-level factors did the performance of CAS and CEA become comparable on all outcomes (figure 1). Conclusion: Performance of CAS and CEA among Medicare beneficiaries was comparable after accounting for patient- and provider-level factors, which is consistent with landmark trials. Further studies are needed to understand the role of heterogeneity in provider-level characteristics.

Background: Paclitaxel-containing devices (PTXDs) significantly reduce reintervention in patients with symptomatic femoropopliteal peripheral artery disease. A recent aggregate-data meta-analysis reported increased late mortality in patients with peripheral artery disease treated with PTXDs. We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis to evaluate mortality. Methods: Manufacturers of US Food and Drug Administration–approved and commercially available devices in the United States provided deidentified individual patient data for independent analysis. Cox proportional hazards 1-stage meta-analysis models using intention-to-treat methods were used for the primary analysis. A secondary analysis of recovered missing vital status data was performed. The impact of control crossover to PTXDs, cause-specific mortality, and drug dose mortality were assessed. Results: A total of 2185 subjects and 386 deaths from 8 PTXD trials with 4-year median follow-up were identified. The primary analysis indicated a 38% (95% CI, 6% to 80%) increased relative mortality risk, corresponding to 4.6% absolute increase, at 5 years associated with PTXD use. Control and treatment arm loss to follow-up and withdrawal were 24% and 23%, respectively. With inclusion of recovered vital status data, the excess relative mortality risk was 27% (95% CI, 3%–58%). This observation was consistent across various scenarios, including as-treated analyses, with no evidence of increased risk over time with PTXDs. Mortality risk tended to be increased for all major causes of death. There were no subgroup differences. No drug dose–mortality association was identified. Conclusions: This individual patient data meta-analysis, based on the most complete available data set of mortality events from PTXD randomized controlled trials, identified an absolute 4.6% increased mortality risk associated with PTXD use.