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.Chronic limb threatening ischaemia has no standardized definition in regards with 'no-option' or 'poor-option' .To determine candidates for limb preservation, an expert panel was gathered to conduct a modified Delphi process to standardize definitions and allow for a proper appraisal for revascularization for this type of patient.

Fabiani, M.A., Van Den Berg, J.C., De La Torre, O.A., Verastegui, A., Dua, A., Alexandrescu, V.A., et al. (2026). Development of a standard definition of ‘no-option’ and ‘poor-option’ for revascularization in chronic limb-threatening ischemia. BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 113(4) [10.1093/bjs/znag040].

Development of a standard definition of ‘no-option’ and ‘poor-option’ for revascularization in chronic limb-threatening ischemia

de Donato G.;Pasqui E.;
2026-01-01

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.Chronic limb threatening ischaemia has no standardized definition in regards with 'no-option' or 'poor-option' .To determine candidates for limb preservation, an expert panel was gathered to conduct a modified Delphi process to standardize definitions and allow for a proper appraisal for revascularization for this type of patient.
2026
Fabiani, M.A., Van Den Berg, J.C., De La Torre, O.A., Verastegui, A., Dua, A., Alexandrescu, V.A., et al. (2026). Development of a standard definition of ‘no-option’ and ‘poor-option’ for revascularization in chronic limb-threatening ischemia. BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 113(4) [10.1093/bjs/znag040].
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11365/1315614
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo