Intravascular Ultrasound in Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia Endovascular Revascularization: A Multidisciplinary
Marc-André d'Entremont1,2,3, Eric A Secemsky4,5, Graham R McClure1,6
1Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Insights
Barriers to using intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) revascularization include cost, procedural time, and lack of data. Most specialists are willing to randomize patients in trials to clarify IVUS benefits.
Area of Science:
- Vascular Surgery
- Interventional Cardiology
- Interventional Radiology
Background:
- Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) shows potential for guiding endovascular revascularization in chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI).
- Current adoption and utilization of IVUS in CLTI remain limited despite its potential benefits.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess clinical equipoise and willingness to randomize among specialists regarding IVUS use in CLTI.
- To identify perceived barriers to the adoption and expansion of IVUS for endovascular revascularization in CLTI patients.
Main Methods:
- A 13-question anonymous online survey was distributed to interventional radiologists, vascular surgeons, and interventional cardiologists in the US, Canada, and UK.
- The survey evaluated opinions on IVUS use, clinical equipoise, and willingness to participate in randomized trials for CLTI.
Main Results:
- 105 operators responded (5.7% response rate).
- Key barriers identified were cost/reimbursement (69.5%), longer procedural time (47.6%), and lack of randomized evidence (39.0%).
- 80.0% agreed a large randomized trial was needed, and 77.1% were willing to randomize patients.
Conclusions:
- Cost, procedural time, and insufficient randomized evidence are major barriers to IVUS use in CLTI revascularization.
- Multidisciplinary specialists exhibit clinical equipoise and willingness to randomize.
- Large randomized controlled trials are essential to guide clinical practice for IVUS in CLTI.
Background:
Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) may be beneficial for guiding endovascular revascularization in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI); however, its use remains limited.
Methods:
We surveyed interventional radiologists, vascular surgeons, and interventional cardiologists in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom using a 13-question, anonymous online questionnaire to evaluate clinical equipoise, willingness to randomize, and opinions and perceptions regarding IVUS use in patients with CLTI undergoing endovascular revascularization.
Results:
A total of 105 operators (5.7% response rate) participated in the survey: 42 interventional radiologists, 40 vascular surgeons and 23 interventional cardiologists. Operators indicated the main obstacles to adopting or expanding IVUS for endovascular revascularization were cost or lack of reimbursement (69.5%), concerns about longer procedural time (47.6%), and the absence of randomized data supporting its benefit (39.0%). Overall, 80.0% of operators agreed that a large, multicenter, randomized trial was required, and 77.1% were willing to randomize patients in such a trial.
Conclusion:
In this multidisciplinary survey, the identified barriers for IVUS use in CLTI revascularization were cost/non-reimbursement, increased procedural time, and lack of randomized evidence. Given respondents' clinical equipoise and willingness to randomize, large randomized controlled trials are needed to inform clinical practice.
Related Concept Videos
Varicose Veins II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care
Venous Thrombosis II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Peripheral Arterial Disease II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Evaluation
Venous Thrombosis III: Interprofessional Care
Peripheral Artery Disease V: Postoperative Nursing Management

