Improved long-term functional outcomes and mortality of patients with vascular-related amputations utilizing the lower extremity amputation pathway.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery pathways lead to improve perioperative outcomes for patients with vascular-related amputations; however, long-term data and functional outcomes are lacking. This study evaluated patients treated by the lower extremity amputation pathway (LEAP) and identified predictors of ambulation. METHODS: A retrospective review of LEAP patients who underwent major amputation from 2016 to 2022 for Wound, Ischemia, and foot Infection stage V disease was performed. LEAP patients were matched 1:1 with retrospective controls (NOLEAP) by hospital, need for guillotine amputation, and final amputation type (above knee vs below knee). The primary end point was the Medicare Functional Classification Level (K level) (functional classification of patients with amputations) at the last follow-up. RESULTS: We included 126 patients with vascular-related amputations (63 LEAP and 63 NOLEAP). Seventy-one percent of the patients were male and 49% were Hispanic with a mean state Area Deprivation Index of 9/10. There were no differences in baseline demographics or comorbidities. All patients had a K level of >0 (ambulatory) before amputation and an average Modified Frailty Index of 4. The median follow-up was 270 days (interquartile range, 84-1234 days) in the NOLEAP group and 369 days (interquartile range, 145-481 days) in the LEAP group. Compared with NOLEAP patients, LEAP patients were more likely to receive a prosthesis (86% vs 44%;P > .001). LEAP patients were more likely to have a K level of >0 (60% vs 25%; P = .003). On multivariable logistic regression, participation in LEAP increased the odds of a K level of >0 at follow-up by 5.8-fold (odds ratio, 5.8; 95% confidence interval, 2.5-13.6). Patients with a K level of >0 had significantly higher survival at 4 years (93% vs 59%; P = .001). In a Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for demographics, comorbidities and amputation level, a K level of >0 at follow-up was associated with an 88% decrease in the risk of mortality compared with a K level of 0. CONCLUSIONS: LEAP leads to improved ambulation with a prosthesis in a socioeconomically disadvantaged and frail patient population. Patients with a K level of >0 (ambulatory) have significantly improved mortality.

Using Vascular Deserts as a Guide for Limb Preservation Outreach Programs Successfully Targets Underserved Populations.

OBJECTIVES: Vascular deserts, regions without vascular providers, previously described targets for limb salvage efforts. The CHAMPIONS programs targeted regions for outreach and evaluated the population using desert maps. METHODS: At two events targeting underserved regions between 2022-2023, providers screened and educated participants on peripheral arterial and cardiovascular disease. Demographics and cardiovascular risk factors were collected. Using ArcGIS, vascular surgeons, and VQI participating facilities were mapped with a 30-mile buffer. Participants were mapped with census data, and the Healthy Places Index (HPI) was overlayed for population and social determinants of health data analysis in Medical Service Study Areas (MSSA), a geographical analysis unit. (Figure 1) Results were compared to prior statewide deserts. RESULTS: Outreach program participants' mean age was 56 (range 6-88); 39% were male, and the majority were Hispanic (86%). 27% had no primary care provider. 30% had diabetes, 10% undiagnosed before the event, 38% had hypertension, 40% undiagnosed prior to the event, and 21% described intermittent claudication. 81% made <$30,000 annually, and 28% reported no health insurance. Similarities were observed when comparing program participant demographics to the population-level data from the targeted regions. Patients were more frequently Hispanic than other desert regions (68% vs. 36%, p<.001). Compared to other vascular desert regions, the target population was more disadvantaged in all HPI domains, including economic (18 vs. 38%, p<.001), education (21 vs. 39%, p<.001), and transportation (30 vs. 40%, p<.001). Worse education, financial, and transportation resources correspond to decreased care access due to poor literacy and travel burdens. CONCLUSIONS: CHAMPIONS programs successfully targeted populations needing care based on vascular care desert maps, demonstrating that at-risk populations can be successfully identified and screened for cardiovascular disease.

Carotid endarterectomy is safe for octogenarians.

BACKGROUND: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has demonstrated superior results in stroke risk reduction for patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic high-grade carotid stenosis. However, this benefit has long been questioned for the elderly and high-risk populations. In the present study, we aimed to provide high-volume, single-institution data with long-term follow-up examining the risk factors for postoperative stroke and stroke-free survival stratified by age for asymptomatic and symptomatic patients undergoing CEA. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review of 840 consecutive patients who had undergone CEA from 2011 to 2018 was performed, inclusive of both symptomatic and asymptomatic operative indications. The primary end point was perioperative stroke within 30 days of surgery. The secondary end points were late stroke, death, and myocardial infarction. Patients aged >80 years were compared with those aged <80 years to examine freedom from stroke and death. Statistically significant differences were defined as those with P < .05. RESULTS: A total of 840 patients were evaluated with a median follow-up of 416 ± 1244 days. Of the 840 patients, 499 (59%) were men, and 604 (72%) were White. The mean age was 72 ± 9 years, with 202 (24%) aged ≥80 years. CEA was performed for symptomatic disease in 305 patients (36%), of whom 143 (47%) had had strokes and 162 (53%) had had transient ischemic attacks. The overall 30-day postoperative stroke rate was 1.0% (eight patients; 0.6% for asymptomatic and 1.6% for symptomatic; P = .147). Compared with younger patients, octogenarians had had a similar stroke rate after CEA (1.5% vs 0.8%; P = .407). Hispanic race was an independent risk factor for postoperative stroke. White race and preoperative statin use both appeared to be protective. Kaplan-Meier survival curves demonstrated decreased a 5-year stroke-free survival in patients aged ≥80 years (P = .031). However, overall, the estimated 5-year survival was similar to the U.S. general population across both age groups. CONCLUSIONS: CEA for octogenarians is safe and effective for both symptomatic and asymptomatic populations with excellent 30-day outcomes and long-term survival mirroring that of the general population.

Community-wide feasibility of the Lower Extremity Amputation Protocol amongst vascular amputees.

BACKGROUND: The Lower Extremity Amputation Protocol (LEAP) is a multidisciplinary enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for vascular amputees. The objective of this study was to examine feasibility and outcomes of community-wide implementation of LEAP. METHODS: LEAP was implemented at three safety net hospitals for patients with peripheral artery disease or diabetes requiring major lower extremity amputation. Patients who underwent LEAP (LEAP) were matched 1:1 with retrospective controls (NOLEAP) on hospital location, need for initial guillotine amputation, and final amputation type (above- vs below-knee). Primary endpoint was postoperative hospital length of stay (PO-LOS). RESULTS: A total of 126 amputees (63 LEAP and 63 NOLEAP) were included with no difference between baseline demographics and co-morbidities between the groups. After matching, both groups had the same prevalence of amputation level (76% below-knee vs 24% above-knee). LEAP patients had shorter duration of postamputation bed rest (P = .003) and were more likely to receive limb protectors (100% vs 40%; P ≤ .001), prosthetic counseling (100% vs 14%; P ≤ .001), perioperative nerve blocks (75% vs 25%; P ≤ .001), and postoperative gabapentin (79% vs 50%; P ≤ .001). Compared with NOLEAP, LEAP patients were more likely to be discharged to an acute rehabilitation facility (70% vs 44%; P = .009) and less likely to be discharged to a skilled nursing facility (14% vs 35%; P = .009). The median PO-LOS for the overall cohort was 4 days. LEAP patients had a shorter median PO-LOS (3 [interquartile range, 2-5] vs 5 [interquartile range, 4-9] days; P < .001). On multivariable logistic regression, LEAP decreased the odds of a PO-LOS of ≥4 days by 77% (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.63). Overall, LEAP patients were significantly less likely to have phantom limb pain (5% vs 21%; P = .02) and were more likely to receive a prosthesis (81% vs 40%; P ≤ .001). In a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, LEAP was associated with an 84% reduction in time to receipt of prosthesis (hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.085-0.303; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Community wide implementation of LEAP significantly improved outcomes for vascular amputees demonstrating that utilization of core ERAS principles in vascular patients leads to decreased PO-LOS and improved pain control. LEAP also affords this socioeconomically disadvantaged population a greater opportunity to receive a prosthesis and return to the community as a functional ambulator.

Outcomes of vascular trauma associated with an evolution in the use of endovascular management.

OBJECTIVE: The availability of endovascular techniques has led to a paradigm shift in the management of vascular injury. Although previous reports showed trends towards the increased use of catheter-based techniques, there have been no contemporary studies of practice patterns and how these approaches differ by anatomic distributions of injury. The objective of this study is to provide a temporal assessment of the use of endovascular techniques in the management of torso, junctional (subclavian, axillary, iliac), and extremity injury and to evaluate any association with survival and length of stay. METHODS: The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) Prospective Observational Vascular Injury Treatment registry (PROOVIT) is the only large multicenter database focusing specifically on the management of vascular trauma. Patients in the AAST PROOVIT registry from 2013 to 2019 with arterial injuries were queried, and radial/ulnar, and tibial artery injuries were excluded. The primary aim was to evaluate the frequency in use of endovascular techniques over time and by body region. A secondary analysis evaluated the trends for junctional injuries and compared the mortality between those treated with open vs endovascular repair. RESULTS: Of the 3249 patients included, 76% were male, and overall treatment type was 42% nonoperative, 44% open, and 14% endovascular. Endovascular treatment increased an average of 2% per year from 2013 to 2019 (range, 17%-35%; R2 = .61). The use of endovascular techniques for junctional injuries increased by 5% per year (range, 33%-63%; R2 = .89). Endovascular treatment was more common for thoracic, abdominal, and cerebrovascular injuries, and least likely in upper and lower extremity injuries. Injury severity score was higher for patients receiving endovascular repair in every vascular bed except lower extremity. Endovascular repair was associated with significantly lower mortality than open repair for thoracic (5% vs 46%; P < .001) and abdominal injuries (15% vs 38%; P < .001). For junctional injuries, endovascular repair was associated with a non-statistically significant lower mortality (19% vs 29%; P = .099), despite higher injury severity score (25 vs 21; P = .003) compared with open repair. CONCLUSIONS: The reported use of endovascular techniques within the PROOVIT registry increased more than 10% over a 6-year period. This increase was associated with improved survival, especially for patients with junctional vascular injuries. Practices and training programs should account for these changes by providing access to endovascular technologies and instruction in the catheter-based skill sets to optimize outcomes in the future.

Lack of patient-centered evaluation of outcomes in intermittent claudication literature.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial disease, characterized as arterial atherosclerotic disease, can lead to insufficient flow in the lower extremities and ischemia, with the most common clinical manifestation being intermittent claudication (IC). In 2022, the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) developed appropriate use criteria for the management of IC that used this systematic review as a source of evidence. The objective of this study is to synthesize the findings of the systematic review and identify evidence gaps. METHODS: A comprehensive search of literature databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus was conducted from January 1, 2000, to November 30, 2022. Noncomparative and comparative observational studies and randomized controlled trials were included. Included studies evaluated exercise therapy, endovascular or open revascularization for the treatment of IC. Outcomes of interest (freedom from major adverse limb event, health-related quality of life, and walking distance) were compared in various subgroups (age, sex, diabetes, smoking status, anatomical location of disease, and optimal medical therapy). RESULTS: Twenty-six studies reported the outcomes of interest for the evidence map. The general conclusions of the studies that reported freedom from major adverse limb events were that reintervention rates for endovascular therapy at ≥2 years were >20%, major amputation rates were often not reported, and, after endovascular therapy, the 1-month mortality was low (<2%). Quality of life and walking distance data were sparse, limited to only endovascular intervention, and insufficient to make any strong conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: IC in patients with peripheral arterial disease poses a significant socioeconomic and health care burden. Major, consequential gaps exist in the IC literature with respect to the assessment of patient reported outcome measures, standardized measures of walking distance and the comparative effectiveness of initial exercise therapy vs invasive intervention. The evidence gaps identified by the Society for Vascular Surgery appropriate use criteria on IC systematic review serve as a guide for future research efforts to optimize care for this patient population.

Carotid Artery Operation Delay During the Covid-19 Pandemic: Results of a Multicenter International Study.

BACKGROUND: To measure the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of patients with carotid artery stenosis. METHODS: We prospectively collected data from 25 centers (19 centers in the United States and 6 centers internationally) on postponed carotid artery operations between March 2020 and January 2022. We describe the characteristics of these patients and their planned operations, along with outcomes including mortality and neurological deterioration during the period of operative delay due to the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: A total of 1,220 vascular operations were postponed during the pandemic, of them 96 patients presented with significant carotid stenosis (median stenosis of 71%; interquartile range; 70-80) and 80% of them were planned for carotid endarterectomy. Most patients were asymptomatic (69%), and 31% of patients were symptomatic (16% of patients had a stroke, 15% of patients had a transient ischemic attack, and 1% of patients experienced amaurosis fugax). The median length of surgical delay was 71 days (interquartile range: 45.5, 115.5). At the data entry time, 62% of patients had their carotid operations postponed and successfully completed. Most postponements (72%) were due to institutional policies aimed at resource conservation. During the delay, no patient decompensated or required an urgent operation. A total of 5 patients (5%) with carotid stenosis died while awaiting operations due to COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Our study of a cohort of patients with carotid artery stenosis who underwent a median delay of 71 days during the COVID-19 pandemic showed a disparate operation delay between US regions and internationally, most postponements were due to hospital policy, and none of the patients deteriorated or required an emergency surgery during the delay.

Type IV Hypersensitivity Reaction after Cyanoacrylate Venous Closure.

BACKGROUND: Nonthermal endovenous closure techniques are routinely utilized to treat superficial axial venous reflux. Cyanoacrylate closure is a safe and effective modality implemented for truncal closure. However, an adverse reaction of type IV hypersensitivity (T4H), unique to cyanoacrylate, is a known risk. This study aims to evaluate the real-world incidence of T4H and examine risk factors that may predispose its development. METHODS: A retrospective review between 2012- and 2022 was performed at four tertiary US institutions to examine patients who underwent cyanoacrylate vein closure of their saphenous veins. Patient demographics, comorbidities, CEAP (Clinical [C], Etiological [E], Anatomical [A], and Pathophysiological [P]) classification, and periprocedural outcomes were included. The primary endpoint was development of T4H post procedure. Logistic regression analysis for risk factors predictive of T4H was performed. Variables with a P-value of <0.05 were deemed significant. RESULTS: 595 patients underwent 881 cyanoacrylate venous closures. Mean age was 66.2 ± 14.9, and 66% of patients were female. There were 92 (10.4%) T4H events in 79 (13%) patients. Oral steroids were administered to 23% for persistent and/or severe symptoms. There were no systemic allergic reactions to cyanoacrylate. Multivariate analysis revealed younger age (P = 0.015), active smoking status (P = 0.033), and CEAP 3 (P < 0.001) and 4 (P = 0.005) classifications as independent risk factors associated with development of T4H. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world multicenter study shows the overall incidence of T4H to be 10%. CEAP 3 and 4 patients of younger age and smokers predicted a higher risk of T4H to cyanoacrylate.

Society for Vascular Surgery appropriate use criteria for management of intermittent claudication.

The Society for Vascular Surgery appropriate use criteria (AUC) for the management of intermittent claudication were created using the RAND appropriateness method, a validated and standardized method that combines the best available evidence from medical literature with expert opinion, using a modified Delphi process. These criteria serve as a framework on which individualized patient and clinician shared decision-making can grow. These criteria are not absolute. AUC should not be interpreted as a requirement to administer treatments rated as appropriate (benefit outweighs risk). Nor should AUC be interpreted as a prohibition of treatments rated as inappropriate (risk outweighs benefit). Clinical situations will occur in which moderating factors, not included in these AUC, will shift the appropriateness level of a treatment for an individual patient. Proper implementation of AUC requires a description of those moderating patient factors. For scenarios with an indeterminate rating, clinician judgement combined with the best available evidence should determine the treatment strategy. These scenarios require mechanisms to track the treatment decisions and outcomes. AUC should be revisited periodically to ensure that they remain relevant. The panelists rated 2280 unique scenarios for the treatment of intermittent claudication (IC) in the aortoiliac, common femoral, and femoropopliteal segments in the round 2 rating. Of these, only nine (0.4%) showed a disagreement using the interpercentile range adjusted for symmetry formula, indicating an exceptionally high degree of consensus among the panelists. Post hoc, the term "inappropriate" was replaced with the phrase "risk outweighs benefit." The term "appropriate" was also replaced with "benefit outweighs risk." The key principles for the management of IC reflected within these AUC are as follows. First, exercise therapy is the preferred initial management strategy for all patients with IC. Second, for patients who have not completed exercise therapy, invasive therapy might provide net a benefit for selected patients with IC who are nonsmokers, are taking optimal medical therapy, are considered to have a low physiologic and technical risk, and who are experiencing severe lifestyle limitations and/or a short walking distance. Third, considering the long-term durability of the currently available technology, invasive interventions for femoropopliteal disease should be reserved for patients with severe lifestyle limitations and a short walking distance. Fourth, in the common femoral segment, open common femoral endarterectomy will provide greater net benefit than endovascular intervention for the treatment of IC. Finally, in the infrapopliteal segment, invasive intervention for the treatment of IC is of unclear benefit and could be harmful.

Professionalism in (vascular) surgery: What does it mean?

A publication in the August 2020 issue of the Journal of Vascular Surgery, "Prevalence of unprofessional social media content among young vascular surgeons," brought the concept of professionalism in the vascular surgery community to the forefront. In response to the methodology used in the article, and the definitions of professionalism, a global backlash from health care providers and lay people ensued. The article has since been retracted; however, its publication highlighted the need to reexamine current definitions and philosophies surrounding professionalism in medicine and surgery that may be discriminatory and exclusive. The term professionalism has no standard definition as evidenced by varying definitions among different societies and organizations. The lack of a structured, universally accepted definition of professionalism in the medical and surgical communities has resulted in no standard by which to measure the actions of physicians and surgeons. The definition of professionalism need not be complex and should not vary among specialties and societies. In its most simplistic form, the core definition of "professionalism" embedded in the volumes of publications, guidelines, and charters that exist on the subject of professionalism in medicine is respect. We propose a tiered approach to define professionalism in medicine that builds on fundamental principles of respect and inclusivity, and includes actionable steps at three levels: (1) individual, (2) organizational, and (3) societal. Through this approach, any physician, regardless of specialty, practice type or location, can apply these concepts to ensure they consistently embody what it means to be "professional."

Endovascular versus open repair of isolated superficial femoral and popliteal artery injuries.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the increasing use of endovascular therapy for traumatic arterial injuries, little is known about the outcomes of endovascular repair of superficial femoral artery (SFA) and popliteal artery (PA) injuries. In the present study, we compared the characteristics and outcomes of endovascular vs open repair of traumatic SFA and PA injuries. METHODS: We performed a retrospective National Trauma Data Bank analysis of trauma patients with a blunt or penetrating injury of the SFA and/or PA who had undergone endovascular or open repair from 2007 to 2014. Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare the outcomes, with propensity score matching used for sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The incidence of SFA and PA injuries was 0.2%, with an overall increase in the annual use of endovascular stent repair from 3.2% in 2007 to 7.6% in 2014 (P = .002). A total of 2,873 patients with an isolated SFA and/or PA injury were included in the present study, of whom 163 (5.7%) had undergone endovascular repair. SFA injuries were more frequently treated with endovascular repair (70% vs 27%) and PA injuries were more often associated with open repair (41.1% vs 54.7%). Open repair was more frequently associated with a concomitant femur fracture or knee dislocation (30.7% vs 38.8%; P = .039). Endovascular repair was not associated with worse in-hospital amputation-free survival (AFS) compared with open repair on univariate analysis (91.1% vs 89.7%; P = .573) or multivariate logistic regression (odds ratio [OR], 1.053; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.551-2.012; P = .876). Propensity score matching revealed that in-hospital mortality was higher (OR, 3.69; 95% CI, 1.37-9.82; P = .01) and fasciotomy was lower (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.14-0.37; P < .001) in the endovascular repair group, with no significant differences in AFS (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.48-1.67; P = .65). CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular repair of SFA and PA injuries has in-hospital AFS comparable to that for open repair, supporting the increasing use of endovascular repair for traumatic SFA and PA injuries in appropriately selected cases. Given the unexpected finding of increased in-hospital mortality after endovascular repair, further studies are necessary to determine the appropriate patient selection and the durability of endovascular repair.

Contemporary outcomes of traumatic popliteal artery injury repair from the popliteal scoring assessment for vascular extremity injury in trauma study.

OBJECTIVE: Traumatic popliteal artery injuries are associated with the greatest risk of limb loss of all peripheral vascular injuries, with amputation rates of 10% to 15%. The purpose of the present study was to examine the outcomes of patients who had undergone operative repair for traumatic popliteal arterial injuries and identify the factors independently associated with limb loss. METHODS: A multi-institutional retrospective review of all patients with traumatic popliteal artery injuries from 2007 to 2018 was performed. All the patients who had undergone operative repair of popliteal arterial injuries were included in the present analysis. The patients who had required a major lower extremity amputation (transtibial or transfemoral) were compared with those with successful limb salvage at the last follow-up. The significant predictors (P < .05) for amputation on univariate analysis were included in a multivariable analysis. RESULTS: A total of 302 patients from 11 institutions were included in the present analysis. The median age was 32 years (interquartile range, 21-40 years), and 79% were men. The median follow-up was 72 days (interquartile range, 20-366 days). The overall major amputation rate was 13%. Primary repair had been performed in 17% of patients, patch repair in 2%, and interposition or bypass in 81%. One patient had undergone endovascular repair with stenting. The overall 1-year primary patency was 89%. Of the patients who had lost primary patency, 46% ultimately required major amputation. Early loss (within 30 days postoperatively) of primary patency was five times more frequent for the patients who had subsequently required amputation. On multivariate regression, the significant perioperative factors independently associated with major amputation included the initial POPSAVEIT (popliteal scoring assessment for vascular extremity injury in trauma) score, loss of primary patency, absence of detectable immediate postoperative pedal Doppler signals, and lack of postoperative antiplatelet therapy. Concomitant popliteal vein injury, popliteal injury location (P1, P2, P3), injury severity score, and tibial vs popliteal distal bypass target were not independently associated with amputation. CONCLUSIONS: Traumatic popliteal artery injuries are associated with a significant rate of major amputation. The preoperative POPSAVEIT score remained independently associated with amputation after including the perioperative factors. The lack of postoperative pedal Doppler signals and loss of primary patency were highly associated with major amputation. The use of postoperative antiplatelet therapy was inversely associated with amputation, perhaps indicating a protective effect.

Popliteal scoring assessment for vascular extremity injuries in trauma study.

OBJECTIVE: Traumatic popliteal vascular injuries are associated with the highest risk of limb loss of all peripheral vascular injuries. A method to evaluate the predictors of amputation is needed because previous scores could not be validated. In the present study, we aimed to provide a simplified scoring system (POPSAVEIT [popliteal scoring assessment for vascular extremity injuries in trauma]) that could be used preoperatively to risk stratify patients with traumatic popliteal vascular injuries for amputation. METHODS: A review of patients sustaining traumatic popliteal artery injuries was performed. Patients requiring amputation were compared with those with limb salvage at the last follow-up. Of these patients, 80% were randomly assigned to a training group for score generation and 20% to a testing group for validation. Significant predictors of amputation (P < .1) on univariate analysis were included in a multivariable analysis. Those with P < .05 on multivariable analysis were assigned points according to the relative value of their odds ratios (ORs). Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated to determine low- vs high-risk scores. An area under the curve of >0.65 was considered adequate for validation. RESULTS: A total of 355 patients were included, with an overall amputation rate of 16%. On multivariate regression analysis, the risk factors independently associated with amputation in the final model were as follows: systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg (OR, 3.2; P = .027; 1 point), associated orthopedic injury (OR, 4.9; P = .014; 2 points), and a lack of preoperative pedal Doppler signals (OR, 5.5; P = .002; 2 points [or 1 point for a lack of palpable pedal pulses if Doppler signal data were unavailable]). A score of ≥3 was found to maximize the sensitivity (85%) and specificity (49%) for a high risk of amputation. The receiver operating characteristic curve for the validation group had an area under the curve of 0.750, meeting the threshold for score validation. CONCLUSIONS: The POPSAVEIT score provides a simple and practical method to effectively stratify patients preoperatively into low- and high-risk major amputation categories.