Framing vulnerability, risk and societal responses: the MOVE framework

The paper deals with the development of a general as well as integrative and holistic framework to systematize and assess vulnerability, risk and adaptation. The framework is a thinking tool meant as a heuristic that outlines key factors and different dimensions that need to be addressed when assessing vulnerability in the context of natural hazards and climate change. The approach underlines that the key factors of such a common framework are related to the exposure of a society or system to a hazard or stressor, the susceptibility of the system or community exposed, and its resilience and adaptive capacity. Additionally, it underlines the necessity to consider key factors and multiple thematic dimensions when assessing vulnerability in the context of natural and socio-natural hazards. In this regard, it shows key linkages between the different concepts used within the disaster risk management (DRM) and climate change adaptation (CCA) research. Further, it helps to illustrate the strong relationships between different concepts used in DRM and CCA. The framework is also a tool for communicating complexity and stresses the need for societal change in order to reduce risk and to promote adaptation. With regard to this, the policy relevance of the framework and first results of its application are outlined. Overall, the framework presented enhances the discussion on how to frame and link vulnerability, disaster risk, risk management and adaptation concepts.

An analysis of IN.PACT DEEP randomized trial on the limitations of the societal guidelines-recommended hemodynamic parameters to diagnose critical limb ischemia.

OBJECTIVE Recent small single-center data indicate that the current hemodynamic parameters used to diagnose critical limb ischemia are insensitive. We investigated the validity of the societal guidelines-recommended hemodynamic parameters against core laboratory-adjudicated angiographic data from the multicenter IN.PACT DEEP (RandomIzed AmPhirion DEEP DEB vs StAndard PTA for the treatment of below the knee Critical limb ischemia) Trial. METHODS Of the 358 patients in the IN.PACT DEEP Trial to assess drug-eluting balloon vs standard balloon angioplasty for infrapopliteal disease, 237 had isolated infrapopliteal disease with an available ankle-brachial index (ABI), and only 40 of the latter had available toe pressure measurements. The associations between ABI, ankle pressure, and toe pressure with tibial runoff, Rutherford category, and plantar arch were examined according to the cutoff points recommended by the societal guidelines. Abnormal tibial runoff was defined as severely stenotic (≥70%) or occluded and scored as one-, two-, or three-vessel disease. A stenotic or occluded plantar arch was considered abnormal. RESULTS Only 14 of 237 patients (6%) had an ABI <0.4. Abnormal ankle pressure, defined as <50 mm Hg if Rutherford category 4 and <70 mm Hg if Rutherford category 5 or 6, was found only in 37 patients (16%). Abnormal toe pressure, defined as <30 mm Hg if Rutherford category 4 and <50 mm Hg if Rutherford category 5 or 6, was found in 24 of 40 patients (60%) with available measurements. Importantly, 29% of these 24 patients had an ABI within normal reference ranges. A univariate multinomial logistic regression found no association between the above hemodynamic parameters and the number of diseased infrapopliteal vessels. However, there was a significant paradoxic association where patients with Rutherford category 6 had higher ABI and ankle pressure than those with Rutherford category 5. Similarly, there was no association between ABI and pedal arch patency. CONCLUSIONS The current recommended hemodynamic parameters fail to identify a significant portion of patients with lower extremity ulcers and angiographically proven severe disease. Toe pressure has better sensitivity and should be considered in all patients with critical limb ischemia.