Why the study?
Two recent multicenter RCTs comparing best endovascular treatment versus surgical revascularization for CLTI reached opposite conclusions, creating uncertainty in clinical practice.
A Delphi consensus of European and US experts highlights that endovascular and open surgical techniques for CLTI should be complementary and individualized, with most experts reporting no change in practice following recent conflicting RCTs.
Expert consensus reconciles conflicting BEST-CLI/BASIL-2 results for CLTI; supports individualized revascularization decisions while leaving optimal strategy open for further trials.
BACKGROUND: Two recent multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared best endovascular treatment versus surgical revascularization for patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) and reached opposite conclusions. The aim of this international, expert-based Delphi Consensus document was to address these conflicting results and to explore their interpretation and applicability in the real-world clinical practice. METHODS: A three-round Delphi Consensus document was completed by 51 European and 17 USA-based experts addressing five pre-specified CLTI clinical scenarios and two questions regarding the applicability of the two RCTs. All answers were provided anonymously. The response rate for each round was 100%. Consensus was reached when ≥70% of the participants agreed on a response showing preference for a specific approach. RESULTS: Most participants (43/68; 63.3%) preferred a venous bypass for a patient with segmental occlusions of the lower limb arteries and an available distal target vessel, although this did not reach consensus. In contrast, consensus was achieved (49/68; 72.2%) for a diabetic patient with occlusion of all three infrapopliteal vessels for whom most experts favored angioplasty of any possible tibial artery. In case of previous endovascular recanalization failure, options were divided between repeat angioplasty (27 of 68; 39.7%) and venous bypass (35 of 68; 51.5%). The majority of participants reported that their approach had not changed following publication of the two RCTs (50 of 68; 73.5%) and did not believe that the trials had changed significantly the management of patients with CLTI in their clinical practice (53 of 68; 77.9%). In a subgroup analysis comparing European vs. USA-based physicians, there were minor differences in specific topics. CONCLUSIONS: In the present Expert-based Consensus document, considerable heterogeneity was found between USA-based and European participants on several topics related to CLTI and consensus was not always achieved. Endovascular and open surgical techniques should be regarded as complementary strategies, rather than as competing alternatives. Treatment should be individualized based on individual patient anatomy, extent of ischemia, presence of tissue loss, foot infection and conduit availability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Paraskevas et al. (2026) studied Chronic limb-threatening ischemia (n=68). Delphi Consensus survey was evaluated on Consensus on CLTI clinical scenarios and applicability of recent RCTs. A Delphi consensus of 68 experts revealed considerable heterogeneity in CLTI management, with 73.5% reporting their clinical approach had not changed following publication of two recent RCTs.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: