The editors of TASC II thank Dr. Pedrini for his thoughtful comments on the TASC II document.
1
One of the primary goals of TASC II was to stimulate discussion, particularly at the National level, that will keep TASC a living document. His careful reading of the document has identified two referencing errors in the Technical Section F, that unfortunately were not picked up prior to press. We apologize for this mistake. Table F7a is incorrectly referenced to a meta-analysis of the aortic bifurcation grafts2
instead of a somewhat earlier article by the same lead author comparing percutaneous and surgical revascularization of the femoral popliteal segment.3
Reference 209 (Klinkert)4
refers to a paper by the same author in the same year published in another journal.5
The TASC II document was primarily designed to provide guidance for primary health physicians, who should find an abbreviated, easy to read document without too many technical details or references. The editors also wanted to update information for vascular specialists. However the ongoing debate of the role of prosthetic versus vein grafts is an example of how national vascular societies can get involved to incorporate the general TASC II recommendations into local practice. Such issues as well as the important question when to use endovascular procedures versus open surgery, were intentionally only briefly addressed in consensus between all 16 societies that were involved in the writing process of TASC II.
The original intent of TASC II was to have a dissemination phase following publication. We will be encouraging interested vascular specialists, as exemplified by Dr. Pedrini, to become involved in this phase by responding and working on local updates that can be published in national journals. We hope this process will bring up controversial issues for discussion, and when appropriate publish summarized amendments.
References
- TASC II Working Group. Inter-Society Consensus for the Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease (TASC II).Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2007; 33: S1-S75
- Results of aortic bifurcation grafts for aortoiliac occlusive disease: a meta-analysis.J Vasc Surg. 1997; 26: 558-569
- Patency results of percutaneous and surgical revascularization for femoropopliteal arterial disease.Med Decis Making. 1994 Jan–Mar; 14: 71-81
- Polytetrafluoroethylene femorotibial bypass grafting: 5-year patency and limb salvage.Ann Vasc Surg. 2003; 17: 486-491
- Vein versus polytetrafluoroethylene in above-knee femoropopliteal bypass grafting: five-year results of a randomized controlled trial.J Vasc Surg. 2003 Jan; 37: 149-155
Article info
Publication history
Accepted:
May 25,
2007
On behalf of the TASC II Working GroupIdentification
Copyright
© 2007 Published by Elsevier Inc.
User license
Elsevier user license | How you can reuse 
Elsevier's open access license policy
Elsevier user license
Permitted
For non-commercial purposes:
- Read, print & download
- Text & data mine
- Translate the article
Not Permitted
- Reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works
- Redistribute or republish the final article
- Sell or re-use for commercial purposes
Elsevier's open access license policy
ScienceDirect
Access this article on ScienceDirectLinked Article
- Considerations about TASC II: Is it a Suitable Document for Specialists?European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular SurgeryVol. 34Issue 4
- PreviewThe Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus Document on Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease (TASC)1–3 was a milestone for angiology and vascular surgery impacting on the indications and treatment of vascular diseases. I think that many surgeons, angiologists and interventional radiologists were waiting for its revision, as stated in the last sentence of the first chapter “the participating societies therefore commit themselves to continuing the update process”.
- Full-Text
- Preview
Related Articles
Comments
Commenting Guidelines
To submit a comment for a journal article, please use the space above and note the following:
- We will review submitted comments as soon as possible, striving for within two business days.
- This forum is intended for constructive dialogue. Comments that are commercial or promotional in nature, pertain to specific medical cases, are not relevant to the article for which they have been submitted, or are otherwise inappropriate will not be posted.
- We require that commenters identify themselves with names and affiliations.
- Comments must be in compliance with our Terms & Conditions.
- Comments are not peer-reviewed.
