Why the study?
Studies assessing endovascular therapy for peripheral arterial disease use non-uniformly defined endpoints, complicating direct comparisons of efficacy.
This consensus statement proposes standardized criteria for reporting outcomes in endovascular therapy for peripheral arterial disease to enable direct comparison across studies.
Inconsistent endpoint terminology limits comparability of endovascular PAD studies; leaves open standardized definitions for future trials.
Endovascular therapy is a rapidly evolving field for the treatment of patients with peripheral arterial disease, and a magnitude of studies reporting on various modern revascularization concepts have been recently published. Thus, studies assessing the efficacy of endovascular therapy of peripheral arteries do not operate with uniformly defined endpoints, rendering a direct comparison of studies difficult. The purpose of this consensus statement is to highlight differences in the terminology used in the current literature and to propose some standardized criteria that must be considered when reporting results of endovascular revascularization for chronic ischaemia of lower limb arteries.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Diehm et al. (2007) conducted a review in Chronic ischaemia of lower limb arteries / Peripheral arterial disease. Endovascular therapy was evaluated. A consensus statement proposing standardized criteria for reporting results of endovascular revascularization for chronic ischaemia of lower limb arteries to address the lack of uniform endpoints.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: