TASC II 2007 - What Has Changed? - Interview and Key Differences in Recommendations

Q: How did the committee membership change from TASC 2000 to TASC II 2007?

TASC II expanded working group membership from 14 to 16 societies and broadened representation beyond North America and Europe to include Japan, Australia, and South Africa. It also added podiatry and evidence-based medicine experts.

Q: What were the major differences in recommendations between TASC 2000 and TASC II 2007?

TASC II more extensively discussed diabetes and placed stronger focus on prevention. The lesion classification was retained but modified to reflect increased evidence supporting endovascular treatment for more extensive lesions.

Q: How were recommendation strength levels graded in developing the TASC II recommendations?

Recommendation levels were graded using evidence strength: “A” for randomized controlled trials, “B” for other well-performed studies, and “C” for remaining evidence such as consensus or expert statements.

Sep 14, 2026

Upload by Himbo

Interview article from June 2007 addressing how the TASC II 2007 update changed recommendations compared with TASC 2000. The discussion covers committee composition, expanded international participation, and greater emphasis on diabetes and prevention. It explains evidence grading (A/B/C) and the drivers for revisions, including technical developments supporting more endovascular therapy. The piece summarizes key shifts in femoropopliteal lesion classification and preferred treatment options across TASC types.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryHealthcare

FormatPDF

Pages4

Reading Time10 min

AccessFree to download

COVER STORY

TASC II 2007: What Has Changed?

Committee Formation and Membership

Key Differences Between TASC 2000 and TASC II 2007

Evidence Grading for Recommendations

Developments Leading to the New Recommendations

Trends in Modern Vascular Care

Preferred Options for Treating Femoropopliteal Lesions

COVER STORY TASC II 2007: What Has Changed? An interview with TASC II Co-Chair Lars Norgren, MD, PhD, FRCS, regarding the recently updated and published recommendations. Endovascular Today: How was the Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) committee first formed, and who comprises it? Dr. Norgren: The “original” TASC recommendations, which were published in 2000, included Working Group members from 14 societies composed of vascular surgery, interventional radiology, angiology, and cardiology, as well as experts in health economy and epidemiology. Endovascular Today: Were there changes in the committee’s makeup between its landmark publications in 2000 and 2007? Dr. Norgren: TASC II included Working Group members from 16 societies, now not only from North America and Europe, but also from Japan, Australia, and South Africa. Further, podiatry experts and experts of evidence-based medicine were included. Endovascular Today: What are the most significant differences between the recommendations presented in TASC 2000 and those in TASC II 2007? Which lesion types were affected most, and why? Dr. Norgren: In principle, diabetes and its vascular complications were more extensively discussed in TASCII. There is great focus on prevention. In addition, concerning treatment, the TASC classification of lesions has been kept as such, but modified to reflect increased evidence for endovascular treatment of more extensive lesions. Endovascular Today: When developing the recommendations, what factors were considered? Dr. Norgren: At this occasion, the level of evidence was considered to grade recommendations. Those levels have been graded “A” when randomized controlled trials are available,“B” when other well-performed studies exist, and “C” for other evidence, such as consensus or expert statements. “ the TASC classification of lesions has been kept as such, but modified to reflect increased evidence for endovascular treatment of more extensive lesions.” Endovascular Today: What developments led to the new recommendations? Dr. Norgren: Little has been shown regarding the treatment of peripheral arterial disease, especially critical limb ischemia, while there is a technical development that justifies more endovascular treatment than was the case with the original TASC guidelines. Great emphasis has been put on diabetes, which has clearly increased as a risk factor and is now at the same level as smoking. Clear recommendations have now been given to perform ankle-brachial indices in some categories of subjects, such as all patients older than 70 years, with or without risk factors. Endovascular Today: What do these changes indicate regarding the trends we are seeing in modern vascular care? JUNE 2007 I ENDOVASCULAR TODAY I 53 COVER STORY | | | | --- | --- | | PREFERRED OPTIONS FOR TREATING FEMOROPOPLITEAL LESIONS | | | TASC 2000 | | | | TASC TYPE A
• Single stenosis <3 cm in length, not at the origin of the superficial femoral artery (SFA) or the distal popliteal artery
Endovascular therapy is the treatment of choice.
TASC TYPE B
• Single stenoses or occlusions 3 cm to 5 cm long not involving the distal popliteal artery
• Heavily calcified stenoses up to 3 cm in length
• Multiple stenoses or occlusions, each <3 cm
• Single or multiple lesions in the absence of continuous tibial runoff to improve inflow for distal surgical bypass
Endovascular therapy is more often used, but there is insufficient evidence to make a firm recommendation.
TASC TYPE C
• Single stenoses or occlusions longer than 5 cm
• Multiple stenoses or occlusions, each 3 cm to 5 cm, with or without heavy calcification
Surgical treatment is more often used, but there is insufficient evidence to make a firm recommendation. | | | TASC TYPE D
• Complete common femoral artery or SFA occlusions, or complete popliteal artery and proximal trifurcation vessels occlusion
Surgery is the treatment

FAQs

How did the committee membership change from TASC 2000 to TASC II 2007?

TASC II expanded working group membership from 14 to 16 societies and broadened representation beyond North America and Europe to include Japan, Australia, and South Africa. It also added podiatry and evidence-based medicine experts.

What were the major differences in recommendations between TASC 2000 and TASC II 2007?

TASC II more extensively discussed diabetes and placed stronger focus on prevention. The lesion classification was retained but modified to reflect increased evidence supporting endovascular treatment for more extensive lesions.

How were recommendation strength levels graded in developing the TASC II recommendations?

Recommendation levels were graded using evidence strength: “A” for randomized controlled trials, “B” for other well-performed studies, and “C” for remaining evidence such as consensus or expert statements.

Sep 14, 2026

Upload by Himbo