User login
The report, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, drew on the expertise of a broad panel of experts, including representatives from the American Heart Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Interventional Radiology, and Society for Vascular Medicine.
“Improvements in the diagnosis of peripheral artery disease (PAD) have led to an increasing number of treatment and revascularization methods, especially endovascular interventions,” wrote Steven R. Bailey, MD, who headed the multidisciplinary writing committee. “As new and increasingly sophisticated devices are developed, the medical community needs to understand how best to incorporate these technologies into daily clinical decision making and care, and how to choose between new and more established methods. This project was initiated to respond to this need and to ensure the effective use of peripheral artery revascularization.”
The document is not intended to cover every possible clinical scenario that could employ these interventions, wrote Dr. Bailey, who is the Janey Briscoe Distinguished Chair in Cardiology at the University of Texas, San Antonio, and his coauthors. “Rather, the goal is to provide generalized guidance into the use of these devices and techniques, while understanding that each clinical situation is unique, with physicians using their best judgment and the available evidence base to craft the most beneficial approach for the patient. In all cases, it is assumed that guideline-directed medical therapy should be applied first.”
The panel identified 45 scenarios in key clinical areas in which PAD interventions – either surgical or endovascular procedures – might be employed as first-line therapy. These included renal artery stenosis, lower extremity disease, critical limb ischemia, and asymptomatic artery disease. The report also discussed options for endovascular interventions, and secondary treatment options for lower extremity disease. The panel graded the value of interventions as appropriate, may be appropriate, or rarely appropriate.
“The scenarios in this document are arranged according to the clinical decision points confronting vascular practitioners in everyday clinical practice,” the panel wrote. “These include the presence or absence of symptoms, presence or absence of limb-threatening disease, severity and anatomical location of the culprit lesion, recurrent or de novo disease, the advantage of endovascular or surgical revascularization, and the expected durability of clinical benefit after an intervention.”
Renal artery stenting
Recommendations in this category were largely based on the CORAL (Cardiovascular Outcomes in Renal Atherosclerotic Lesions) study, which recommends best medical therapy as the initial treatment for a newly diagnosed patient. (N Engl J Med 2014;370:13-22).
The optimal medical approach is generally thought to be three antihypertensive medications, one of which should be a diuretic. Primary stenting can be considered for patients with an accelerating decline in renal function and bilateral or solitary significant renal artery stenosis, or moderate stenosis with translesional gradients that exceed threshold measurements. In patients with stable renal function and unilateral significant stenosis, intensifying medical therapy is appropriate. Stenting is rarely appropriate in patients with small, nonviable kidneys.
Lower extremity disease
Recommendations for lower extremity revascularization in patients with claudication are based largely on the 2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Patients with Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease.
For patients with PAD and intermittent claudication, medical therapy and exercise are the first-line treatments. Revascularization should be considered only when this option fails. The appropriateness of intervention depends on the location and length of the lesion.
Intensification of medical therapy or endovascular treatment are appropriate for patients with aortoiliac, superficial femoral artery, and popliteal artery lesions; surgery also may be appropriate here. Medical therapy is appropriate for lesions located below the knee, as well; endovascular approaches also may be appropriate. Surgery for these lesions is rarely appropriate.
Critical limb ischemia
Medical therapy is generally not considered for these patients. But regardless of the lesion location, the panel found either endovascular or surgical treatment appropriate. Indeed, revascularization is the only viable treatment for these patients.
“Revascularization, whether endovascular or surgical, is critical for the reduction of high morbidity and mortality rates associated with limb loss. Mortality rates have been reported to be as high as 20% within 6 months of diagnosis and exceeding 50% after 5 years in patients left untreated. Furthermore, this degree of PAD is commonly associated with excessive cardiovascular events, often surpassing mortality rates associated with even symptomatic coronary artery disease.”
Asymptomatic artery disease
The recommendations in this category address the need to gain arterial access for potentially life-saving cardiovascular procedures. There are no published data in this area, so the recommendations are all based on expert opinion.
To gain access for coronary interventions, endovascular treatment and surgery are both appropriate. For hemodynamic support and large vascular or valvular interventions, endovascular approaches are appropriate, and surgical approaches may be appropriate.
Options for endovascular treatment when deemed appropriate or may be appropriate
Since there is no standardized treatment when an intervention is deemed appropriate, the potential procedures are organized by general lesion location (above or below the inguinal ligament and below the knee), and by lesion length. The recommendations cover the most commonly used endovascular treatment modalities.
“Of note, the use of atherectomy in the iliac artery has been rated Rarely Appropriate in all clinical scenarios,” the team noted. “This rating derives from an absence of data supporting the use of this technology, compared with balloon angioplasty and stenting. Similarly, the use of atherectomy in the superficial femoral and popliteal arteries and below-the-knee vessels also received a lower score, again because of the lack of comparative data relative to technologies with prospectively collected data. The evidence base to judge intervention below the knees is not as developed as other lower-extremity locations, which results in more frequent use of the May Be Appropriate category. The rating panel felt that below-the-knee atherectomy once again lacked comparative evidence to support general use.”
There are some exceptions, “favoring atherectomy include severe calcification and undilatable lesions; however, other technologies had a better evidence base for routine revascularization in most settings.”
Secondary treatment options for lower-extremity disease
This section addresses options for very specific situations, including in-stent restenosis, venous bypass graft failure, and prosthetic bypass graft failure.
“It is recognized that the need for revascularization of a failing conduit, graft, or stent is a marker of adverse outcomes for all of the reparative modalities employed,” the panel wrote. “Literature comparing treatment modalities for in-stent stenosis, venous graft failures, and arterial graft failures is very limited. Therefore, the recommendations primarily reflect consensus based upon current clinical practice.”
The modality choice should probably depend more upon surgeon preference and clinical experience, rather than a blanket recommendation. In general, the panel felt that surgical revascularizations are rarely appropriate for in-stent stenosis, especially if the patient is asymptomatic.
The panel felt that endovascular approaches are generally appropriate for focal stenoses in patients with prior surgical grafts and bioprosthetic material, but in patients with diffused stenosis or thrombosed grafts, both endovascular and surgical approaches were graded as may be appropriate.
“The specific type of therapy [device or surgical procedure] is at the discretion of the clinician, dictated by the clinical scenario plus physician and facility experience.”
Dr. Bailey had no financial disclosures; however, some members of the panel did disclose relationships with device manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Bailey SR et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Dec 17.
The report, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, drew on the expertise of a broad panel of experts, including representatives from the American Heart Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Interventional Radiology, and Society for Vascular Medicine.
“Improvements in the diagnosis of peripheral artery disease (PAD) have led to an increasing number of treatment and revascularization methods, especially endovascular interventions,” wrote Steven R. Bailey, MD, who headed the multidisciplinary writing committee. “As new and increasingly sophisticated devices are developed, the medical community needs to understand how best to incorporate these technologies into daily clinical decision making and care, and how to choose between new and more established methods. This project was initiated to respond to this need and to ensure the effective use of peripheral artery revascularization.”
The document is not intended to cover every possible clinical scenario that could employ these interventions, wrote Dr. Bailey, who is the Janey Briscoe Distinguished Chair in Cardiology at the University of Texas, San Antonio, and his coauthors. “Rather, the goal is to provide generalized guidance into the use of these devices and techniques, while understanding that each clinical situation is unique, with physicians using their best judgment and the available evidence base to craft the most beneficial approach for the patient. In all cases, it is assumed that guideline-directed medical therapy should be applied first.”
The panel identified 45 scenarios in key clinical areas in which PAD interventions – either surgical or endovascular procedures – might be employed as first-line therapy. These included renal artery stenosis, lower extremity disease, critical limb ischemia, and asymptomatic artery disease. The report also discussed options for endovascular interventions, and secondary treatment options for lower extremity disease. The panel graded the value of interventions as appropriate, may be appropriate, or rarely appropriate.
“The scenarios in this document are arranged according to the clinical decision points confronting vascular practitioners in everyday clinical practice,” the panel wrote. “These include the presence or absence of symptoms, presence or absence of limb-threatening disease, severity and anatomical location of the culprit lesion, recurrent or de novo disease, the advantage of endovascular or surgical revascularization, and the expected durability of clinical benefit after an intervention.”
Renal artery stenting
Recommendations in this category were largely based on the CORAL (Cardiovascular Outcomes in Renal Atherosclerotic Lesions) study, which recommends best medical therapy as the initial treatment for a newly diagnosed patient. (N Engl J Med 2014;370:13-22).
The optimal medical approach is generally thought to be three antihypertensive medications, one of which should be a diuretic. Primary stenting can be considered for patients with an accelerating decline in renal function and bilateral or solitary significant renal artery stenosis, or moderate stenosis with translesional gradients that exceed threshold measurements. In patients with stable renal function and unilateral significant stenosis, intensifying medical therapy is appropriate. Stenting is rarely appropriate in patients with small, nonviable kidneys.
Lower extremity disease
Recommendations for lower extremity revascularization in patients with claudication are based largely on the 2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Patients with Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease.
For patients with PAD and intermittent claudication, medical therapy and exercise are the first-line treatments. Revascularization should be considered only when this option fails. The appropriateness of intervention depends on the location and length of the lesion.
Intensification of medical therapy or endovascular treatment are appropriate for patients with aortoiliac, superficial femoral artery, and popliteal artery lesions; surgery also may be appropriate here. Medical therapy is appropriate for lesions located below the knee, as well; endovascular approaches also may be appropriate. Surgery for these lesions is rarely appropriate.
Critical limb ischemia
Medical therapy is generally not considered for these patients. But regardless of the lesion location, the panel found either endovascular or surgical treatment appropriate. Indeed, revascularization is the only viable treatment for these patients.
“Revascularization, whether endovascular or surgical, is critical for the reduction of high morbidity and mortality rates associated with limb loss. Mortality rates have been reported to be as high as 20% within 6 months of diagnosis and exceeding 50% after 5 years in patients left untreated. Furthermore, this degree of PAD is commonly associated with excessive cardiovascular events, often surpassing mortality rates associated with even symptomatic coronary artery disease.”
Asymptomatic artery disease
The recommendations in this category address the need to gain arterial access for potentially life-saving cardiovascular procedures. There are no published data in this area, so the recommendations are all based on expert opinion.
To gain access for coronary interventions, endovascular treatment and surgery are both appropriate. For hemodynamic support and large vascular or valvular interventions, endovascular approaches are appropriate, and surgical approaches may be appropriate.
Options for endovascular treatment when deemed appropriate or may be appropriate
Since there is no standardized treatment when an intervention is deemed appropriate, the potential procedures are organized by general lesion location (above or below the inguinal ligament and below the knee), and by lesion length. The recommendations cover the most commonly used endovascular treatment modalities.
“Of note, the use of atherectomy in the iliac artery has been rated Rarely Appropriate in all clinical scenarios,” the team noted. “This rating derives from an absence of data supporting the use of this technology, compared with balloon angioplasty and stenting. Similarly, the use of atherectomy in the superficial femoral and popliteal arteries and below-the-knee vessels also received a lower score, again because of the lack of comparative data relative to technologies with prospectively collected data. The evidence base to judge intervention below the knees is not as developed as other lower-extremity locations, which results in more frequent use of the May Be Appropriate category. The rating panel felt that below-the-knee atherectomy once again lacked comparative evidence to support general use.”
There are some exceptions, “favoring atherectomy include severe calcification and undilatable lesions; however, other technologies had a better evidence base for routine revascularization in most settings.”
Secondary treatment options for lower-extremity disease
This section addresses options for very specific situations, including in-stent restenosis, venous bypass graft failure, and prosthetic bypass graft failure.
“It is recognized that the need for revascularization of a failing conduit, graft, or stent is a marker of adverse outcomes for all of the reparative modalities employed,” the panel wrote. “Literature comparing treatment modalities for in-stent stenosis, venous graft failures, and arterial graft failures is very limited. Therefore, the recommendations primarily reflect consensus based upon current clinical practice.”
The modality choice should probably depend more upon surgeon preference and clinical experience, rather than a blanket recommendation. In general, the panel felt that surgical revascularizations are rarely appropriate for in-stent stenosis, especially if the patient is asymptomatic.
The panel felt that endovascular approaches are generally appropriate for focal stenoses in patients with prior surgical grafts and bioprosthetic material, but in patients with diffused stenosis or thrombosed grafts, both endovascular and surgical approaches were graded as may be appropriate.
“The specific type of therapy [device or surgical procedure] is at the discretion of the clinician, dictated by the clinical scenario plus physician and facility experience.”
Dr. Bailey had no financial disclosures; however, some members of the panel did disclose relationships with device manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Bailey SR et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Dec 17.
The report, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, drew on the expertise of a broad panel of experts, including representatives from the American Heart Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Interventional Radiology, and Society for Vascular Medicine.
“Improvements in the diagnosis of peripheral artery disease (PAD) have led to an increasing number of treatment and revascularization methods, especially endovascular interventions,” wrote Steven R. Bailey, MD, who headed the multidisciplinary writing committee. “As new and increasingly sophisticated devices are developed, the medical community needs to understand how best to incorporate these technologies into daily clinical decision making and care, and how to choose between new and more established methods. This project was initiated to respond to this need and to ensure the effective use of peripheral artery revascularization.”
The document is not intended to cover every possible clinical scenario that could employ these interventions, wrote Dr. Bailey, who is the Janey Briscoe Distinguished Chair in Cardiology at the University of Texas, San Antonio, and his coauthors. “Rather, the goal is to provide generalized guidance into the use of these devices and techniques, while understanding that each clinical situation is unique, with physicians using their best judgment and the available evidence base to craft the most beneficial approach for the patient. In all cases, it is assumed that guideline-directed medical therapy should be applied first.”
The panel identified 45 scenarios in key clinical areas in which PAD interventions – either surgical or endovascular procedures – might be employed as first-line therapy. These included renal artery stenosis, lower extremity disease, critical limb ischemia, and asymptomatic artery disease. The report also discussed options for endovascular interventions, and secondary treatment options for lower extremity disease. The panel graded the value of interventions as appropriate, may be appropriate, or rarely appropriate.
“The scenarios in this document are arranged according to the clinical decision points confronting vascular practitioners in everyday clinical practice,” the panel wrote. “These include the presence or absence of symptoms, presence or absence of limb-threatening disease, severity and anatomical location of the culprit lesion, recurrent or de novo disease, the advantage of endovascular or surgical revascularization, and the expected durability of clinical benefit after an intervention.”
Renal artery stenting
Recommendations in this category were largely based on the CORAL (Cardiovascular Outcomes in Renal Atherosclerotic Lesions) study, which recommends best medical therapy as the initial treatment for a newly diagnosed patient. (N Engl J Med 2014;370:13-22).
The optimal medical approach is generally thought to be three antihypertensive medications, one of which should be a diuretic. Primary stenting can be considered for patients with an accelerating decline in renal function and bilateral or solitary significant renal artery stenosis, or moderate stenosis with translesional gradients that exceed threshold measurements. In patients with stable renal function and unilateral significant stenosis, intensifying medical therapy is appropriate. Stenting is rarely appropriate in patients with small, nonviable kidneys.
Lower extremity disease
Recommendations for lower extremity revascularization in patients with claudication are based largely on the 2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Patients with Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease.
For patients with PAD and intermittent claudication, medical therapy and exercise are the first-line treatments. Revascularization should be considered only when this option fails. The appropriateness of intervention depends on the location and length of the lesion.
Intensification of medical therapy or endovascular treatment are appropriate for patients with aortoiliac, superficial femoral artery, and popliteal artery lesions; surgery also may be appropriate here. Medical therapy is appropriate for lesions located below the knee, as well; endovascular approaches also may be appropriate. Surgery for these lesions is rarely appropriate.
Critical limb ischemia
Medical therapy is generally not considered for these patients. But regardless of the lesion location, the panel found either endovascular or surgical treatment appropriate. Indeed, revascularization is the only viable treatment for these patients.
“Revascularization, whether endovascular or surgical, is critical for the reduction of high morbidity and mortality rates associated with limb loss. Mortality rates have been reported to be as high as 20% within 6 months of diagnosis and exceeding 50% after 5 years in patients left untreated. Furthermore, this degree of PAD is commonly associated with excessive cardiovascular events, often surpassing mortality rates associated with even symptomatic coronary artery disease.”
Asymptomatic artery disease
The recommendations in this category address the need to gain arterial access for potentially life-saving cardiovascular procedures. There are no published data in this area, so the recommendations are all based on expert opinion.
To gain access for coronary interventions, endovascular treatment and surgery are both appropriate. For hemodynamic support and large vascular or valvular interventions, endovascular approaches are appropriate, and surgical approaches may be appropriate.
Options for endovascular treatment when deemed appropriate or may be appropriate
Since there is no standardized treatment when an intervention is deemed appropriate, the potential procedures are organized by general lesion location (above or below the inguinal ligament and below the knee), and by lesion length. The recommendations cover the most commonly used endovascular treatment modalities.
“Of note, the use of atherectomy in the iliac artery has been rated Rarely Appropriate in all clinical scenarios,” the team noted. “This rating derives from an absence of data supporting the use of this technology, compared with balloon angioplasty and stenting. Similarly, the use of atherectomy in the superficial femoral and popliteal arteries and below-the-knee vessels also received a lower score, again because of the lack of comparative data relative to technologies with prospectively collected data. The evidence base to judge intervention below the knees is not as developed as other lower-extremity locations, which results in more frequent use of the May Be Appropriate category. The rating panel felt that below-the-knee atherectomy once again lacked comparative evidence to support general use.”
There are some exceptions, “favoring atherectomy include severe calcification and undilatable lesions; however, other technologies had a better evidence base for routine revascularization in most settings.”
Secondary treatment options for lower-extremity disease
This section addresses options for very specific situations, including in-stent restenosis, venous bypass graft failure, and prosthetic bypass graft failure.
“It is recognized that the need for revascularization of a failing conduit, graft, or stent is a marker of adverse outcomes for all of the reparative modalities employed,” the panel wrote. “Literature comparing treatment modalities for in-stent stenosis, venous graft failures, and arterial graft failures is very limited. Therefore, the recommendations primarily reflect consensus based upon current clinical practice.”
The modality choice should probably depend more upon surgeon preference and clinical experience, rather than a blanket recommendation. In general, the panel felt that surgical revascularizations are rarely appropriate for in-stent stenosis, especially if the patient is asymptomatic.
The panel felt that endovascular approaches are generally appropriate for focal stenoses in patients with prior surgical grafts and bioprosthetic material, but in patients with diffused stenosis or thrombosed grafts, both endovascular and surgical approaches were graded as may be appropriate.
“The specific type of therapy [device or surgical procedure] is at the discretion of the clinician, dictated by the clinical scenario plus physician and facility experience.”
Dr. Bailey had no financial disclosures; however, some members of the panel did disclose relationships with device manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Bailey SR et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Dec 17.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY