Why the study?
To perform a multi-institutional retrospective validation of the Society for Vascular Surgery Appropriate Use Criteria for the management of intermittent claudication.
Does inappropriate treatment per SVS AUC lead to worse clinical outcomes compared to appropriate/indeterminate treatment in patients with intermittent claudication?
Does inappropriate treatment per SVS AUC lead to worse clinical outcomes compared to appropriate/indeterminate treatment in patients with intermittent claudication?
Treatment of intermittent claudication deemed inappropriate by SVS Appropriate Use Criteria is associated with significantly higher rates of reintervention and amputation compared to appropriate or indeterminate treatment.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Inappropriate SVS AUC revascularization for intermittent claudication warrants caution; supports criteria predictive value in real-world cohorts.
OBJECTIVE To perform a multi-institutional retrospective validation of the Society for Vascular Surgery Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for management of intermittent claudication (IC). METHODS A retrospective review of patients treated for IC from 2005-2024 was performed across 7 institutions. Inclusion criteria followed AUC assumptions. All treated limbs were rated as appropriate (benefit outweighs risk, B>R), indeterminate (IND) or inappropriate (risk outweighs benefit, R>B) per the original AUC by 2 authors, who resolved discrepancies through discussion. Analysis was performed on the patient level. If one limb was rated as R>B, the patient was rated as R>B. For the purposes of comparison, B>R and IND were grouped together (B>R/IND). RESULTS A total of 372 patients were included. The median follow-up was 1190 days (interquartile range [IQR] 433-2115). Treatment was classified as B>R/IND in 245 patients (66%) and R>B in 127 (34%). More patients in R>B identified as Black (12.7% vs 6.7%) and Hispanic (19.8% vs 9.2%) (p=0.006). Fewer patients in R>B were on optimal medical therapy at the time of evaluation (58.3% vs 75.9%, p<0.01). More patients in R>B had mild or moderate lifestyle limitation (93.7% vs 68.6%, p<0.01) and fewer patients in R>B had exercise therapy prior to revascularization (22% vs 54%, p<0.01). The most affected segments were aortoiliac (30.9%) and femoropopliteal (49.7%). Revascularization was performed in 231 patients (104 B>R/IND and 127 R>B). Of patients who underwent revascularization, 149 underwent unilateral revascularization and 82 underwent bilateral revascularization. Interventions were most often performed in the femoropopliteal (48.1%) and aortoiliac (35.1%) segments. At 2 years from initial consultation with the vascular surgeon, 19% in the R>B group were free from revascularization compared to 57% in the B>R/IND group (p<0.01). Freedom from symptom recurrence at 2 years was lower in the R>B group but did not reach statistical significance (48.9% vs 60%, p=0.07). Freedom from reintervention at 2 years following revascularization was significantly lower in the R>B group (44% vs 72%, p=0.01). A total of 10 major amputations and 11 minor amputations occurred in 17 (4.6%) patients over the study period. Among patients who had mild/moderate lifestyle limitation and were classified as R>B, 15 (11.8%) underwent 9 minor amputations and 10 major amputations. Among patients who had mild or moderate lifestyle limitation and were classified as B>R/IND, no patients underwent any type of amputation. CONCLUSION In this retrospective multi-institutional cohort, patients with IC who were treated inappropriately (R>B) per SVS AUC experienced significantly worse outcomes compared to those who received appropriate/indeterminate (B>R/IND) treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vega et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: