SVS Guidelines Bundle

Follow-Up After Vascular Surgery Arterial Procedures

SVS GUIDELINES App Bundle brought to you fcourtesy of Guideline Central. All of these titles are available for purchase on our website, Enjoy!

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 7 of 7

106 Commerce Street, Suite 105 Lake Mary, FL 32746 TEL: 407.878.7606 • FAX: 407.878.7611 Order additional copies at Copyright © 2018 All rights reserved Disclaimer is pocket guide attempts to define principles of practice that should produce high-quality patient care. It is applicable to specialists, primary care, and providers at all levels. is pocket guide should not be considered exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed at obtaining the same results. e ultimate judgment concerning the propriety of any course of conduct must be made by the clinician aer consideration of each individual patient situation. Neither IGC, the medical associations, nor the authors endorse any product or service associated with the distributor of this clinical reference tool. SVSFOL1863 Source Zierler RE, Jordan WD, Lal BK, Mussa F, Leers S, Fulton J, Pevec W, Hill A, Murad MH. e Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines on follow-up aer vascular surgery arterial procedures. J Vasc Surg. 2018 Jul;68(1):256-284. Abbreviations ABI, ankle-brachial index; CAS, carotid artery stenting ; CCA, common carotid artery; CEA, carotid endarterectomy; CT, computed tomography; DUS, duplex ultrasound; EDV, end- diastolic velocity; EVAR, endovascular aneurysm repair; EVT, endovascular therapy; GFV, gra flow velocity; ICA, internal carotid artery; ISR, in-stent restenosis; MR, magnetic resonance; PSV, peak systolic velocity; TEVAR, thoracic endovascular aortic repair; Vr, PSV velocity ratio (PSV at the site of a stenosis divided by the PSV in a normal vessel segment proximal to the stenosis) Recommendation Grading Strength of Recommendation Level of Evidence 1 = Strong Benefits > Risks Risks > Benefits A = High Additional research is considered very unlikely to change confidence in the estimate of the effect. 2 = Weak Benefits ≈ Risks Quality of evidence precludes accurate assessment of risks and benefits. B = Moderate Further research is likely to have an important impact on the estimate of the effect. C = Low Further research is very likely to change the estimate of the effect. Adapted from Guyatt G, Gutterman D, Baumann MH, Addrizzo-Harris D, Hylek EM, Phillips B, et al. Grading strength of recommendations and quality of evidence in clinical guidelines. Chest 2006;129:174-81.

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of SVS Guidelines Bundle - Follow-Up After Vascular Surgery Arterial Procedures