Abstract

The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for Management of Intermittent Claudication were created using the RAND appropriateness method (RAM) which is a validated and standardized methodology that combines best-available evidence from medical literature with expert opinion, using a modified-Delphi process. These criteria serve as a framework upon which individualized patient and clinician shared decision-making can grow. These criteria are not absolute. AUC should not be interpreted as a requirement to administer treatments rated as appropriate (benefit outweighs risk). Nor should AUC be interpreted as a prohibition on treatments rated as inappropriate (risk outweighs benefit). There will be clinical situations in which moderating factors, not included in these AUC, will shift the appropriateness level of a treatment for an individual patient. Proper implementation of AUC calls for a description of those moderating patient factors. For scenarios with an indeterminate rating, clinician judgement combined with best available evidence should determine treatment strategy. Importantly, these are scenarios in need of mechanisms to track treatment decisions and outcomes. AUC should be revisited on a periodic basis to ensure that these criteria remain relevant. The panelists rated 2280 unique scenarios for the treatment of intermittent claudication (IC) in the aortoiliac, common femoral and femoropopliteal segment in Round 2 rating. Of these, only 9 (0.4%) had disagreement according to the IPRAS formula, indicating an exceptionally high degree of consensus among the panelists. [Note, post-hoc, the term, "inappropriate," was replaced with the term "R>B" (risk outweighs benefit). The term "appropriate" was also replaced with "B>R" (benefit outweighs risk)]. The key principles for the management of intermittent claudication reflected within these AUC are: (1) Exercise therapy is a preferred initial management strategy for all patients with IC. (2) For patients who have not completed exercise therapy, invasive therapy may provide net benefit in selected patients with IC who are non-smokers, are taking optimal medical therapy, are considered low physiologic and technical risk, and who are experiencing severe lifestyle limitation and/or short walking distance. (3) Considering the long-term durability of currently available technology, invasive interventions for femoropopliteal disease should be reserved for patients with severe lifestyle limitation and short walking distance. (4) In the common femoral segment, open common femoral endarterectomy provides greater net benefit than endovascular intervention for the treatment of IC. (5) In the infrapopliteal segment, invasive intervention for the treatment of intermittent claudication is of unclear benefit and may be harmful.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jvs.2022.04.012

View details for PubMedID 35470016