Dataset Information

A 5-Year Follow-up Study to Assess Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Diabetes Undergoing Lower Limb Angiography for Significant Peripheral Artery Disease.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The optimal management for patients with diabetes and peripheral vascular disease-intermittent claudication or critical limb ischemia (CLI)-remains undetermined.

Methods

In a single-center retrospective analysis, we compared 1- and 5-year amputation-free survival rates in patients undergoing angiography subsequently treated with medical therapy or revascularization.

Results

78 patients were included, 56 with CLI (mean age 77 years); 22 with claudication (mean age 75 years). Of the CLI cohort, 30 patients were medically treated. Their 1-year amputation-free survival rate was similar to those treated with revascularization (46.7% versus 50.0%, respectively). 8 patients in the claudicant cohort were treated conservatively. The 1-year amputation-free survival rate was 75.0% for conservative treatment versus 78.6% in those revascularized. Within the CLI cohort, in those conservatively treated 20% underwent major, and 16.7% minor amputations, compared to 15.4% and 23.1% in those revascularized. At 5 years in the claudicant cohort, the amputation-free survival rate was 37.5% with medical treatment, versus 71.4% for those treated with revascularization. For CLI, the 5-year amputation-free survival rate was 10% for conservative treatment, versus 26.9% for revascularization.

Conclusion

We found similar rates of amputation at 1 year for patients treated medically or revascularized. However, at 5 years, the amputation-free survival rate was markedly higher in revascularized patients compared to those medically managed. Our study highlights the potential role of predicting life expectancy when considering treatment, with the option of surgical treatment offered to those in whom survival is predicted to be longer than 5 years. However, larger studies with matched cohorts are now needed to confirm these findings.

SUBMITTER: Gu Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4674466 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of duplex ultrasonography, magnetic resonance angiography, and computed tomography angiography, alone or in combination, for the assessment of lower limb peripheral arterial disease; to evaluate the impact of these assessment methods on management of patients and outcomes; and to evaluate the evidence regarding attitudes of patients to these technologies and summarise available data on adverse events.DesignSystematic review.MethodsSearches of 11 electronic databases (to April 2005), six journals, and reference lists of included papers for relevant studies. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed quality. Diagnostic accuracy studies were assessed for quality with the QUADAS checklist.Results107 studies met the inclusion criteria; 58 studies provided data on diagnostic accuracy, one on outcomes in patients, four on attitudes of patients, and 44 on adverse events. Quality assessment highlighted limitations in the methods and quality of reporting. Most of the included studies reported results by arterial segment, rather than by limb or by patient, which does not account for the clustering of segments within patients, so specificities may be overstated. For the detection of stenosis of 50% or more in a lower limb vessel, contrast enhanced magnetic resonance angiography had the highest diagnostic accuracy with a median sensitivity of 95% (range 92-99.5%) and median specificity of 97% (64-99%). The results were 91% (89-99%) and 91% (83-97%) for computed tomography angiography and 88% (80-98%) and 96% (89-99%) for duplex ultrasonography. A controlled trial reported no significant differences in outcomes in patients after treatment plans based on duplex ultrasonography alone or conventional contrast angiography alone, though in 22% of patients supplementary contrast angiography was needed to form a treatment plan. The limited evidence available suggested that patients preferred magnetic resonance angiography (with or without contrast) to contrast angiography, with half expressing no preference between magnetic resonance angiography or duplex ultrasonography (among patients with no contraindications for magnetic resonance angiography, such as claustrophobia). Where data on adverse events were available, magnetic resonance angiography was associated with the highest proportion of adverse events, but these were mild. The most severe adverse events, although rare, were mainly associated with contrast angiography.ConclusionsContrast enhanced magnetic resonance angiography seems to be more specific than computed tomography angiography (that is, better at ruling out stenosis over 50%) and more sensitive than duplex ultrasonography (that is, better at ruling in stenosis over 50%) and was generally preferred by patients over contrast angiography. Computed tomography angiography was also preferred by patients over contrast angiography; no data on patients' preference between duplex ultrasonography and contrast angiography were available. Where available, contrast enhanced magnetic resonance angiography might be a viable alternative to contrast angiography.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) have known to a high risk of cardiac mortality. However, the effectiveness of the routine evaluation of coronary arteries such as routine coronary angiography (CAG) in PAD patients receiving percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) is unclear.MethodsA total of 765 consecutive PAD patients underwent successful PTA and 674 patients (88.1%) underwent routine CAG. Coronary artery disease (CAD) was defined as angiographic stenosis ≥70%. Patients were divided into three groups; 1) routine CAG and a presence of CAD (n = 413 patients), 2) routine CAG and no CAD group (n = 261 patients), and 3) no CAG group (n = 91 patients). To adjust for any potential confounders that could cause bias, multivariable Cox-proportional hazards regression and propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier curved analysis at 5-year follow-up.ResultsIn this study, the 5-year survival rate of patients with PAD who underwent PTA was 88.5%. Survival rates were similar among the CAD group, the no CAD group, and the no CAG group, respectively (87.7% vs. 90.4% vs. 86.8% P = 0.241). After PSM analysis between the CAD group and the no CAD group, during the 5-year clinical follow-up, there were no differences in the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, strokes, peripheral revascularization, or target extremity surgeries between the two groups except for repeat PCI, which was higher in the CAD group than the non-CAD group (9.3% vs. 0.8%, P<0.001).ConclusionPAD patients with CAD were expected to have very poor long-term survival, but they are shown no different long-term prognosis such as mortality compared to PAD patients without CAD. These PAD patients with CAD had received PCI and/or optimal medication treatment after the CAG. Therefore a strategy of routine CAG and subsequent PCI, if required, appears to be a reasonable strategy for mortality risk reduction of PAD patients. Our results highlight the importance for evaluation for CAD in patients with PAD.