Objective: To prospectively compare the Lower Extremity Grading System (LEGS)-derived "recommended treatment" to the actual treatment performed and to analyze LEGS intergrader scoring consistency by comparing blinded scoring results between physician graders.
Summary background data: Due to technical advances and the increased medical complexity of the aging population, the most appropriate treatment for chronic lower extremity ischemia-open surgery versus endovascular-is again in flux. In an attempt to standardize management, the LEGS score, based on the best available outcomes data, was devised by the physicians of an established vascular service.
Methods: From March to June 2002, all chronically ischemic lower extremities that met standard indications for revascularization were prospectively enrolled and independently graded with the LEGS score by an "endovascular surgeon" and an "open surgeon" for comparative analysis. The results were then blindly evaluated to determine whether the LEGS-derived "recommended treatment" agreed with the actual treatment rendered and to assess for intergrader consistency. Agreement was assessed using kappa statistical analysis.
Results: Of the 137 presenting limbs (mean patient age 66.4 yo; 43% claudication, 57% limb-threatening ischemia), 107 were treated (65% endovascular, 30% open surgery, 5% amputation), 16 were pending treatment, and 14 were not treated because of patient refusal (n = 13) or death (n = 1). The LEGS score predicted the actual or offered clinical treatment in 90% of cases. The LEGS score comparison between physician graders resulted in identical "recommended treatment" in 116 of 128 cases for a 90.6% agreement.
Conclusions: A reproducible scoring system to guide the treatment of patients with chronic lower extremity ischemia is possible. While systems like the LEGS score may have potential clinical application, their use as a treatment standardization tool for future prospective outcomes comparisons between open and endovascular surgery will be essential.