Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41497996›Full record

ReviewJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions2025

Contemporary Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia Care in the United States-Part 2: Designing Clinical Device Trials.

Eric A Secemsky, Ehrin J Armstrong, Venita Chandra, Raghu Kolluri, Saher S Sabri, Niten Singh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Eric A SecemskyDivision of Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ehrin J ArmstrongDepartment of Interventional Cardiology, Advanced Heart and Vein Center, Denver, Colorado.
Venita ChandraDivision of Vascular Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California.
Raghu KolluriCardiovascular Service Line - OhioHealth Riverside Methodist Hospital, Columbus, Ohio.
Saher S SabriDivision of Interventional Radiology, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC.
Niten SinghDivision of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, Washington.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Head-to-head research comparing invasive revascularization strategies for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is sparse, partly due to challenges in conducting randomized controlled trials in the CLTI space. These include the expense of head-to-head trials, optimizing patient selection criteria for real-world applicability, and identifying optimal study end points. The Vascular InterVentional Advances (VIVA) Foundation, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization, convened a Vascular Leaders Forum to initiate an open, multispecialty collaborative discussion of these challenges and ways to optimize the design of medical device trials in CLTI. This article summarizes the current landscape of clinical studies of CLTI revascularization strategies and options for designing comparative trials proposed by representatives from vascular surgery, interventional cardiology, interventional radiology, vascular medicine, podiatry, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and a medical device manufacturer. Four broad areas to optimize comparative trials of CLTI interventions were identified. First, primary end points should be carefully chosen with attention to clinical, patient-centric, imaging, and hierarchical considerations; standardization; and inclusion of guideline-directed medical therapy. Second, broader eligibility criteria can expand and hasten enrollment and are important for gathering evidence on outcomes in medically complex patients often encountered in real-world practice. Third, extending the primary end point timing to 12 months with additional follow-up out to 24 to 60 months would accommodate a longer period of device evaluation and the ability to enrich clinical end-point rates. Finally, innovative pragmatic trial designs and statistical methodologies are needed to conduct comprehensive, cost effective, relevant trials with sufficient statistical power and without prohibitively large sample sizes and study durations.

Indexed as

chronic limb-threatening ischemiaclinical trialsend pointsrandomized registry controlled trialsregistry studiestarget trial emulation

Identifiers

PMID41497996
PMCPMC12766039

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.