Citations

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.

Background The relationship between office vs. ambulatory blood pressure (BP) indices are well-studied in patients with essential hypertension and based on these data, it is known that the average 24-h ambulatory BP is typically lower than office BP. However, emerging data show that office SBP underestimates arterial afterload in patients with coarctation of aorta (COA), and a minimal increase in stroke volume during low-intensity exercise results in an exaggerated rise in SBP as compared to those with essential hypertension. We hypothesized that COA patients will have higher ambulatory SBP and a higher prevalence of masked hypertension compared to patients with essential hypertension. Methods Case-control study of 118 COA patients and 118 patients with essential hypertension matched by age, sex, BMI and office SBP. Results Although both groups had similar office SBP (132 ± 17 mmHg) by design, the COA group had paradoxical increases in 24-h ambulatory SBP (135 ± 14 vs. 126 ± 13; P < 0.001) and daytime ambulatory SBP (142 ± 16 vs. 130 ± 13; P < 0.001), and less nocturnal dipping (−3 ± 5 vs. −9 ± 4; P < 0.001). The COA group also had a higher prevalence of masked hypertension [36 (31%) vs 14 (12%); P < 0.001), and worse arterial function indices. Conclusion These findings underscore the potential limitations of relying on office SBP for screening/monitoring of hypertension in COA and potential pitfalls in extrapolating essential hypertension guidelines recommendations to the treatment of COA. It also provides the rationale for further studies to determine if pharmacologic BP interventions guided by ambulatory BP data will improve clinical outcomes in the COA population.