For many years, the only pharmacological option for patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) unsuitable for revascularization has been prostanoids; however, some recent guidelines have become very restrictive regarding their use. We review the available evidence on the use of prostanoids and analyze the guideline positions as well as the possible reasons for changes over time. In most placebo-controlled trials and meta-analyses, prostanoids showed a significant effect in improving rest pain, promoting ulcer healing and reducing major amputations. Results for iloprost were especially consistent. Different prostanoid drugs have different evidence of efficacy, thus using a generic term "prostanoids" is misleading. Unfortunately, the available evidence is often of low quality and probably not sufficient to support an extensive use of prostanoids in all patients, and further high-quality randomized trials are needed. Consequently, some recent guidelines do not recommend treatment with prostanoids in this setting. However, in our opinion, pending definitive evidence, patients with CLI who have a viable limb in whom revascularization is unfeasible or has a poor chance of success, without alternative to amputation, may benefit from treatment with iloprost, balancing harms and benefits in each case.
Keywords: critical limb ischemia; guidelines; iloprost; outcome; prostanoids.