General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available:

Ulcerated diabetic foot is a complex problem. Ischaemia, neuropathy and infection are the three pathological components that lead to diabetic foot complications, and they frequently occur together as an aetiologic triad. Neuropathy and ischaemia are the initiating factors, most often together as neuroischaemia, whereas infection is mostly a consequence. The role of peripheral arterial disease in diabetic foot has long been underestimated as typical ischaemic symptoms are less frequent in diabetics with ischaemia than in non-diabetics. Furthermore, the healing of a neuroischaemic ulcer is hampered by microvascular dysfunction. Therefore, the threshold for revascularising neuroischaemic ulcers should be lower than that for purely ischaemic ulcers. Previous guidelines have largely ignored these specific demands related to ulcerated neuroischaemic diabetic feet. Any diabetic foot ulcer should always be considered to have vascular impairment unless otherwise proven. Early referral, non-invasive vascular testing, imaging and intervention are crucial to improve diabetic foot ulcer healing and to prevent amputation. Timing is essential, as the window of opportunity to heal the ulcer and save the leg is easily missed. This chapter underlines the paucity of data on the best way to diagnose and treat these diabetic patients. Most of the studies dealing with neuroischaemic diabetic feet are not comparable in terms of patient populations, interventions or outcome. Therefore, there is an urgent need for a paradigm shift in diabetic foot care; that is, a new approach and classification of diabetics with vascular impairment in regard to clinical practice and research. A multidisciplinary approach needs to implemented systematically with a vascular surgeon as an integrated member. New strategies must be developed and implemented for diabetic foot patients with vascular impairment, to improve healing, to speed up healing rate and to avoid amputation, irrespective of the intervention technology chosen. Focused studies on the value of predictive tests, new treatment modalities as well as selective and targeted strategies are needed. As specific data on ulcerated neuroischaemic diabetic feet are scarce, recommendations are often of low grade.

The concept of chronic critical limb ischaemia (CLI) emerged late in the history of peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD). The historical background and changing definitions of CLI over the last decades are important to know in order to understand why epidemiologic data are so difficult to compare between articles and over time. The prevalence of CLI is probably very high and largely underestimated, and significant differences exist between population studies and clinical series. The extremely high costs associated with management of these patients make CLI a real public health issue for the future. In the era of emerging vascular surgery in the 1950s, the initial classification of PAOD by Fontaine, with stages III and IV corresponding to CLI, was based only on clinical symptoms. Later, with increasing access to non-invasive haemodynamic measurements (ankle pressure, toe pressure), the need to prove a causal relationship between PAOD and clinical findings suggestive of CLI became a real concern, and the Rutherford classification published in 1986 included objective haemodynamic criteria. The first consensus document on CLI was published in 1991 and included clinical criteria associated with ankle and toe pressure and transcutaneous oxygen pressure (TcPO(2)) cut-off levels <50 mmHg, <30 mmHg and <10 mmHg respectively). This rigorous definition reflects an arterial insufficiency that is so severe as to cause microcirculatory changes and compromise tissue integrity, with a high rate of major amputation and mortality. The TASC I consensus document published in 2000 used less severe pressure cut-offs (≤ 50-70 mmHg, ≤ 30-50 mmHg and ≤ 30-50 mmHg respectively). The thresholds for toe pressure and especially TcPO(2) (which will be also included in TASC II consensus document) are however just below the lower limit of normality. It is therefore easy to infer that patients qualifying as CLI based on TASC criteria can suffer from far less severe disease than those qualifying as CLI in the initial 1991 consensus document. Furthermore, inclusion criteria of many recent interventional studies have even shifted further from the efforts of definition standardisation with objective criteria, by including patients as CLI based merely on Fontaine classification (stage III and IV) without haemodynamic criteria. The differences in the natural history of patients with CLI, including prognosis of the limb and the patient, are thus difficult to compare between studies in this context. Overall, CLI as defined by clinical and haemodynamic criteria remains a severe condition with poor prognosis, high medical costs and a major impact in terms of public health and patients' loss of functional capacity. The major progresses in best medical therapy of arterial disease and revascularisation procedures will certainly improve the outcome of CLI patients. In the future, an effort to apply a standardised definition with clinical and objective haemodynamic criteria will be needed to better demonstrate and compare the advances in management of ...

Use of EndoAnchors to treat existing and acute type Ia endoleaks and endograft migration was successful in most cases. Prophylactic use of EndoAnchors in patients with hostile aortic neck anatomy appears promising, but definitive conclusions must await longer term follow-up data.

Background Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence.Methods ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362.