A systematic review of the accuracy of prognostic tests and scoring systems for use in the Global Vascular Guidelines' PLAN concept for the treatment of chronic limb threatening ischemia.

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE Journal of Vascular Surgery Pub Date : 2024-12-25 DOI:10.1016/j.jvs.2024.12.043
Rutger H A Welling, Marjolein van Breugel, Mats van de Mortel, Gert J de Borst, Andrej Schmidt, Daniel A F van den Heuvel, Olaf J Bakker
{"title":"A systematic review of the accuracy of prognostic tests and scoring systems for use in the Global Vascular Guidelines' PLAN concept for the treatment of chronic limb threatening ischemia.","authors":"Rutger H A Welling, Marjolein van Breugel, Mats van de Mortel, Gert J de Borst, Andrej Schmidt, Daniel A F van den Heuvel, Olaf J Bakker","doi":"10.1016/j.jvs.2024.12.043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The 2019 Global Vascular Guidelines recommend risk assessment for evidence based revascularization based on the acronym PLAN: Patient risk, Limb severity and ANatomical complexity of disease. This meta-analysis compares a multitude of prognostic tests within these categories.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis of tests that estimated 1-year major event (amputation-free survival and major adverse limb events) probability. Individual patient data were reconstructed from survival estimate curves. With presence or absence of major events, sensitivity, specificity, and area under receiver operating characteristics curves (AUC) were computed. Tests with an AUC ≥70%, or that correlated with revascularization feasibility were included. Practical application of tests was assessed to make a recommendation on PLAN implementation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety-six studies describing 77 unique predictive techniques were included, of which thirteen were sufficient. These 13 tests were divided in four Patient risk (5 studies), three Limb severity (3 studies), and six ANatomical complexity of disease (9 studies). Patient risk: Three tests were included: biochemical assessment of calprotectin and C-reactive protein, radiologic measurement of sarcopenia, and predictive score with the GermanVasc chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) score. These tests scored AUCs of 82.0%, 72.7%, and 71.8%, respectively, of which the GermanVasc CLTI score was deemed most applicable in clinical practice. Limb severity: The adjusted Wound Ischemia foot Infection score (WIfI) resulted as best predictive score (AUC, 78.8%), but due to the lack of external validation, the original WIfI score was deemed best applicable. ANatomical complexity of disease: No test surpassed 70% AUC for 1-year event estimation, and was correlated with feasibility of revascularization, the latter only being served by the Global Limb Anatomic Staging System.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In evidence-based revascularization in patients with CLTI according to the PLAN concept, we recommend to use GermanVasc, WIfI, and the Global Limb Anatomic Staging System.</p>","PeriodicalId":17475,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Vascular Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Vascular Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2024.12.043","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The 2019 Global Vascular Guidelines recommend risk assessment for evidence based revascularization based on the acronym PLAN: Patient risk, Limb severity and ANatomical complexity of disease. This meta-analysis compares a multitude of prognostic tests within these categories.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of tests that estimated 1-year major event (amputation-free survival and major adverse limb events) probability. Individual patient data were reconstructed from survival estimate curves. With presence or absence of major events, sensitivity, specificity, and area under receiver operating characteristics curves (AUC) were computed. Tests with an AUC ≥70%, or that correlated with revascularization feasibility were included. Practical application of tests was assessed to make a recommendation on PLAN implementation.

Results: Ninety-six studies describing 77 unique predictive techniques were included, of which thirteen were sufficient. These 13 tests were divided in four Patient risk (5 studies), three Limb severity (3 studies), and six ANatomical complexity of disease (9 studies). Patient risk: Three tests were included: biochemical assessment of calprotectin and C-reactive protein, radiologic measurement of sarcopenia, and predictive score with the GermanVasc chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) score. These tests scored AUCs of 82.0%, 72.7%, and 71.8%, respectively, of which the GermanVasc CLTI score was deemed most applicable in clinical practice. Limb severity: The adjusted Wound Ischemia foot Infection score (WIfI) resulted as best predictive score (AUC, 78.8%), but due to the lack of external validation, the original WIfI score was deemed best applicable. ANatomical complexity of disease: No test surpassed 70% AUC for 1-year event estimation, and was correlated with feasibility of revascularization, the latter only being served by the Global Limb Anatomic Staging System.

Conclusions: In evidence-based revascularization in patients with CLTI according to the PLAN concept, we recommend to use GermanVasc, WIfI, and the Global Limb Anatomic Staging System.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对全球血管指南中用于治疗慢性肢体威胁性缺血的PLAN概念的预后测试和评分系统的准确性进行系统回顾。
导语:2019年全球血管指南建议基于首字母缩略词PLAN的循证血运重建术风险评估;患者风险、肢体严重程度和疾病的解剖复杂性。本荟萃分析比较了这些类别中的大量预后测试。方法:对估计1年主要事件(无截肢生存和主要肢体不良事件)概率的试验进行系统回顾和荟萃分析。根据生存估计曲线重建个体患者数据。有或没有重大事件的;计算灵敏度、特异度和面积下工作特征曲线(AUC)。纳入AUC≥70%或与血运重建可行性相关的试验。对测试的实际应用进行了评估,以对计划的实施提出建议。结果:纳入96项研究,描述77种独特的预测技术,其中13种是充分的。这13项试验分为4项患者风险(5项研究)、3项肢体严重程度(3项研究)和6项疾病解剖复杂性(9项研究)。患者风险:包括三项测试;钙保护蛋白和CRP的生化评估,骨骼肌减少症的放射学测量和GermanVasc CLTI评分的预测评分。这些测试的auc评分分别为82.0%、72.7%和71.8%,其中德国vasc CLTI评分被认为最适用于临床实践。肢体严重程度:调整后的伤口缺血足部感染评分为最佳预测评分(AUC为78.8%),但由于缺乏外部验证,原始的伤口缺血足部感染评分被认为最适用。疾病的解剖复杂性:1年事件估计没有超过70% AUC的测试,并且与血运重建的可行性相关,后者仅由全球肢体解剖分期系统(GLASS)提供服务。结论:在CLTI患者的循证血运重建术中,我们推荐使用GermanVasc,伤口缺血和足部感染,以及全球肢体解剖分期系统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
18.60%
发文量
1469
审稿时长
54 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Vascular Surgery ® aims to be the premier international journal of medical, endovascular and surgical care of vascular diseases. It is dedicated to the science and art of vascular surgery and aims to improve the management of patients with vascular diseases by publishing relevant papers that report important medical advances, test new hypotheses, and address current controversies. To acheive this goal, the Journal will publish original clinical and laboratory studies, and reports and papers that comment on the social, economic, ethical, legal, and political factors, which relate to these aims. As the official publication of The Society for Vascular Surgery, the Journal will publish, after peer review, selected papers presented at the annual meeting of this organization and affiliated vascular societies, as well as original articles from members and non-members.
期刊最新文献
The great gender dilemma in complex aortic repair: Why do women fare worse with FEVAR? Controversies in the management strategy for symptomatic chronic internal carotid artery occlusion. Endovascular strategies for the short distance between the lowest renal artery and aortic bifurcation. How do we afford the BEST care for females with chronic limb-threatening ischemia? How should failed infrarenal endovascular aortic repair with a short renal artery to bifurcation distance be managed?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1