Search

Revascularization of patients with intermittent claudication (IC) is recommended only for selected patients who have chronic pain or disabling disease. However, improvement in the quality of life (QoL) could justify more widespread use.Objectives: To determine the effect of conservative treatment and revascularization on the QoL and physical performance of selected patients with IC.Patients and Methods: This nonrandomized, parallel group, follow-up study included 83 patients with IC at Fontaine stage II. On the basis of interventional opportunities and the risks and benefits, combined with the preference of the patient, 47 patients were treated conservatively and 41 were revascularized. The patients were examined at inclusion and 3 months later. The evaluations included the QoL measure Short Form 36 (SF-36), the Walking Impairment Questionnaire (WIQ), pain-free and maximal walking distance (treadmill at 3 km/h, no incline), maximal isometric knee-extension strength and endurance, and ankle—brachial blood pressure index (ABI).Results: At baseline, the SF-36 and WIQ scores and the ABI were significantly lower in the patients selected for revascularization. After revascularization, all dimensions of QoL and functional status increased significantly in the patients who underwent revascularisation compared with the patients treated conservatively. The difference in the change in the physical component summary of SF-36 was 29.4% (P < .001), in the total WIQ 63.6% (P = .0002), and in the pain-free and maximal walking distances 313% (P < .001) and 135% (P < .001), respectively. After adjustment for age, smoking, ABI, body mass index (BMI), and baseline values, the differences remained statistically significant.Conclusion: Revascularization above the knee increased QoL, functional status, and walking distance significantly in patients with moderate IC. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Purpose: Researchers aimed to describe general practitioners' understanding of appropriate ultrasound use, to record actual scanning practices of early adopters in general practice, and to identify differences between attitudes and actual practice via a mixed methods analysis.Methods: This study was part of a larger multistage mixed methods research framework exploring the use of ultrasound in general practice in Denmark. We used an exploratory sequential approach in the data collection with initial qualitative findings from an interview study applied to building a quantitative questionnaire utilized in a cohort study. In addition, we merged the qualitative and quantitative data using joint display analysis to compare and contrast the results from the 2 stages of the study.Results: In the interviews, general practitioners described appropriate ultrasound use as point-of-care examinations with a clear purpose and limited to predefined specific conditions within delimited anatomic areas. They stated that general practitioners should receive formalized ultrasound training and be skilled in the examinations they perform. In the cohort study, general practitioners performed ultrasound examinations of anatomic areas with or without a defined clinical suspicion. Some performed ultrasound examinations for which they had no previous training or skills.Conclusions: We found a difference between the ideas about the appropriate uses for ultrasound in general practice and the actual use by early adopters in clinical practice. Our findings suggest a need for evidence-based guidelines to support general practitioners in choosing which examinations to perform and strategies for developing and maintaining scanning competency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]