The Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts in the field of vascular ultrasonography (US) to come to a consensus regarding Doppler US for assistance in the diagnosis of carotid artery stenosis. The panel's consensus statement is believed to represent a reasonable position on the basis of analysis of available literature and panelists' experience. Key elements of the statement include the following: (a) All internal carotid artery (ICA) examinations should be performed with gray-scale, color Doppler, and spectral Doppler US. (b) The degree of stenosis determined at gray-scale and Doppler US should be stratified into the categories of normal (no stenosis), <50% stenosis, 50%-69% stenosis, > or =70% stenosis to near occlusion, near occlusion, and total occlusion. (c) ICA peak systolic velocity (PSV) and presence of plaque on gray-scale and/or color Doppler images are primarily used in diagnosis and grading of ICA stenosis; two additional parameters, ICA-to-common carotid artery PSV ratio and ICA end-diastolic velocity may also be used when clinical or technical factors raise concern that ICA PSV may not be representative of the extent of disease. (d) ICA should be diagnosed as (i) normal when ICA PSV is less than 125 cm/sec and no plaque or intimal thickening is visible; (ii) <50% stenosis when ICA PSV is less than 125 cm/sec and plaque or intimal thickening is visible; (iii) 50%-69% stenosis when ICA PSV is 125-230 cm/sec and plaque is visible; (iv) > or =70% stenosis to near occlusion when ICA PSV is greater than 230 cm/sec and visible plaque and lumen narrowing are seen; (v) near occlusion when there is a markedly narrowed lumen at color Doppler US; and (vi) total occlusion when there is no detectable patent lumen at gray-scale US and no flow at spectral, power, and color Doppler US. (e) The final report should discuss velocity measurements and gray-scale and color Doppler findings. Study limitations should be noted when they exist. The conclusion should state an estimated degree of ICA stenosis as reflected in the above categories. The panel also considered various technical aspects of carotid US and methods for quality assessment and identified several important unanswered questions meriting future research.

The CEAP classification for chronic venous disorders (CVD) was developed in 1994 by an international ad hoc committee of the American Venous Forum, endorsed by the Society for Vascular Surgery, and incorporated into "Reporting Standards in Venous Disease" in 1995. Today most published clinical papers on CVD use all or portions of CEAP. Rather than have it stand as a static classification system, an ad hoc committee of the American Venous Forum, working with an international liaison committee, has recommended a number of practical changes, detailed in this consensus report. These include refinement of several definitions used in describing CVD; refinement of the C classes of CEAP; addition of the descriptor n (no venous abnormality identified); elaboration of the date of classification and level of investigation; and as a simpler alternative to the full (advanced) CEAP classification, introduction of a basic CEAP version. It is important to stress that CEAP is a descriptive classification, whereas venous severity scoring and quality of life scores are instruments for longitudinal research to assess outcomes.

Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) continues to grow in global prevalence and consumes an increasing amount of resources in the United States health care system. Overall rates of intervention for PAD have been rising steadily in recent years. Changing demographics, evolution of technologies, and an expanding database of outcomes studies are primary forces influencing clinical decision making in PAD. The management of PAD is multidisciplinary, involving primary care physicians and vascular specialists with varying expertise in diagnostic and treatment modalities. PAD represents a broad spectrum of disease from asymptomatic through severe limb ischemia. The Society for Vascular Surgery Lower Extremity Practice Guidelines committee reviewed the evidence supporting clinical care in the treatment of asymptomatic PAD and intermittent claudication (IC). The committee made specific practice recommendations using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. There are limited Level I data available for many of the critical questions in the field, demonstrating the urgent need for comparative effectiveness research in PAD. Emphasis is placed on risk factor modification, medical therapies, and broader use of exercise programs to improve cardiovascular health and functional performance. Screening for PAD appears of unproven benefit at present. Revascularization for IC is an appropriate therapy for selected patients with disabling symptoms, after a careful risk-benefit analysis. Treatment should be individualized based on comorbid conditions, degree of functional impairment, and anatomic factors. Invasive treatments for IC should provide predictable functional improvements with reasonable durability. A minimum threshold of a >50% likelihood of sustained efficacy for at least 2 years is suggested as a benchmark. Anatomic patency (freedom from restenosis) is considered a prerequisite for sustained efficacy of revascularization in IC. Endovascular approaches are favored for most candidates with aortoiliac disease and for selected patients with femoropopliteal disease in whom anatomic durability is expected to meet this minimum threshold. Conversely, caution is warranted in the use of interventions for IC in anatomic settings where durability is limited (extensive calcification, small-caliber arteries, diffuse infrainguinal disease, poor runoff). Surgical bypass may be a preferred strategy in good-risk patients with these disease patterns or in those with prior endovascular failures. Common femoral artery disease should be treated surgically, and saphenous vein is the preferred conduit for infrainguinal bypass grafting. Patients who undergo invasive treatments for IC should be monitored regularly in a surveillance program to record subjective improvements, assess risk factors, optimize compliance with cardioprotective medications, and monitor hemodynamic and patency status.

In this prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial, ex vivo treatment of lower extremity vein grafts with edifoligide did not confer protection from reintervention for graft failure.

The CEAP classification for chronic venous disorders (CVD) was developed in 1994 by an international ad hoc committee of the American Venous Forum (AVF), endorsed by the Society for Vascular Surgery and incorporated into "Reporting standards in venous disease" in 1995. Today most published clinical papers on CVD use all or portions of CEAP. Rather than have it stand as a static classification system, an ad hoc committee of the AVF, working with an international liaison committee, has recommended a number of practical changes which are detailed in this consensus report. These include: refinements of several definitions used in describing CVD; refinement of the C-classes of CEAP; addition of the descriptor n (no venous abnormality identified); elaboration of the date of classification and level of investigation, and as a simpler alternative to the full (advanced) CEAP classification, introduction of a "basic" CEAP version. It is important to stress that CEAP is a descriptive classification, while venous severity scoring and quality of life scores are instruments for longitudinal research to assess outcomes.

Survival is not improved by elective repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms smaller than 5.5 cm, even when operative mortality is low.

Some measure of disease severity is needed to properly compare the outcomes of the various approaches to the treatment of chronic venous insufficiency. Comparing the outcomes of two or more different treatments in a clinical trial, or the same treatment in two or more reports from the literature cannot be done with confidence unless the relative severity of the venous disease in each treatment group is known. The CEAP (Clinical-Etiology-Anatomic-Pathophysiologic) system is an excellent classification scheme, but it cannot serve the purpose of venous severity scoring because many of its components are relatively static and others use detailed alphabetical designations. A disease severity scoring scheme needs to be quantifiable, with gradable elements that can change in response to treatment. However, an American Venous Forum committee on venous outcomes assessment has developed a venous severity scoring system based on the best usable elements of the CEAP system. Two scores are proposed. The first is a Venous Clinical Severity Score: nine clinical characteristics of chronic venous disease are graded from 0 to 3 (absent, mild, moderate, severe) with specific criteria to avoid overlap or arbitrary scoring. Zero to three points are added for differences in background conservative therapy (compression and elevation) to produce a 30 point-maximum flat scale. The second is a Venous Segmental Disease Score, which combines the Anatomic and Pathophysiologic components of CEAP. Major venous segments are graded according to presence of reflux and/or obstruction. It is entirely based on venous imaging, primarily duplex scan but also phlebographic findings. This scoring scheme weights 11 venous segments for their relative importance when involved with reflux and/or obstruction, with a maximum score of 10. A third score is simply a modification of the existing CEAP disability score that eliminates reference to work and an 8-hour working day, substituting instead the patient's prior normal activities. These new scoring schemes are intended to complement the current CEAP system.

For new catheter-based therapies in CLI, OPGs offer a feasible approach for pre-market evaluation using non-randomized trial designs. Such studies should incorporate risk stratification in design and reporting as the CLI population is heterogeneous with respect to baseline variables and expected outcomes. Guidelines for CLI trial design to address consistency in study cohorts, methods of assessment, and endpoint definitions are provided.