TY - JOUR
T1 - Development of a standard definition of ‘no-option’ and ‘poor-option’ for revascularization in chronic limb-threatening ischemia
AU - the International Cooperative Vascular Consortium (ICVC)
AU - Fabiani, Mario Alejandro
AU - van den Berg, Jos C.
AU - De la Torre, Oscar A.
AU - Verastegui, Alfredo
AU - Dua, Anahita
AU - Alexandrescu, Vlad Adrian
AU - Baadh, Amanjit
AU - Bahaa, Nasr
AU - Carvajal, Juan Guillermo Barrera
AU - Beasley, Robert
AU - Biasi, Lukla
AU - Bisdas, Theodosios
AU - Blessing, Erwin
AU - Bonvini, Stefano
AU - Brodmann, Marianne
AU - Cabral, Gonçalo
AU - Cancellieri, Roberto
AU - Caradu, Caroline
AU - Casini, Andrea
AU - Chandra, Venita
AU - Chisci, Emiliano
AU - Chohan, Omar
AU - Choke, Edward
AU - Chong, Patrick
AU - Cioppa, Angelo
AU - Clerici, Giacomo
AU - Coscas, Raphaël
AU - Costantino, Del Giudice
AU - D'Oria, Mario
AU - Davies, Robert
AU - de Donato, Gianmarco
AU - De Vries, Jean Paul
AU - Del Canto Peruyera, Pablo
AU - Del Rio-Sola, Maria Lourdes
AU - Deloose, Koen
AU - Dhand, Sabeen
AU - Diamantopoulos, Athanasios
AU - Díaz-Sandoval, Larry J.
AU - Dick, Florian
AU - Falcone, Gianmarco
AU - Fanelli, Fabrizio
AU - Fazzini, Stefano
AU - Cardona, Lucas Ferrer
AU - Fujihara, Masahiko
AU - Garg, Karan
AU - Garriboli, Luca
AU - Genovese, Elizabeth
AU - Gifford, Edward
AU - Giuffrida, Stefania
AU - Roy, Trisha
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2026. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Foundation Ltd. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact [email protected] for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact [email protected].
PY - 2026/4
Y1 - 2026/4
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105036272263
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=105036272263&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/bjs/znag040
DO - 10.1093/bjs/znag040
M3 - Article
C2 - 41941595
AN - SCOPUS:105036272263
SN - 0007-1323
VL - 113
JO - British Journal of Surgery
JF - British Journal of Surgery
IS - 4
ER -