Search

Abstract: Background: Lower extremity peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a coronary heart disease (CHD) risk equivalent. Selected studies have demonstrated less intense risk factor management and diminished mobility in individuals with PAD as compared to individuals with clinical recognized CHD. However, comparable data have not been reported from a nationally representative population. Objectives: To assess the prevalence, treatment, and control of cardiovascular risk factors among individuals with PAD as defined by an ankle-brachial index (ABI) <0.90 (but without recognized CHD) as compared with individuals with recognized CHD (but without PAD). A second objective was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of measures of walking dysfunction to identify individuals with PAD. Design, setting, and participants: We analyzed data from 7571 participants aged 40 or older who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999–2004, a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of the U.S. population. Results: The prevalence of PAD without CHD was 4.1% (95% CI 3.6–4.5) compared to 7.9% (7.1, 8.9) for CHD (without PAD). Hypertension prevalence was similar, but treatment and control rates were lower among individuals with PAD compared to CHD (treatment: 69% vs. 84%, p <0.001; control: 50% vs. 63%, p =0.01). Treatment of hypercholesterolemia was lower among individuals with PAD (54% vs. 79%, p <0.001) but control was similar (83% vs. 85%, p =0.78). Diabetes awareness, treatment, and control did not differ between the two groups. Walking mobility limitations were specific, but insensitive, for the identification of individuals with PAD. Conclusion: PAD in the absence of clinically recognized CHD is under-treated and poorly controlled in the general U.S. population. Leg symptoms are not adequate to identify individuals with PAD, who are at high risk of ischemic events. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: The clinical significance of a high ankle-brachial index (ABI), defined by the associated risk factor burden and ischemic risk, is largely unknown. Methods: Using data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study, we categorized 14,777 participants into normal (ABI between 0.9 and 1.3) and high ABI groups (ABI>1.3, >1.4, and >1.5) and compared the risk factor profile and CVD event rates of the normal ABI group to each high ABI group. Results: The prevalence of high ABI was 5.5% for ABI>1.3, 1.2% for ABI>1.4, and 0.37% for ABI>1.5. Compared with participants with a normal ABI, those with ABI>1.3 had a lower prevalence of hypertension and current smoking. The ABI>1.3 group had a greater mean body mass index, but was characterized by fewer pack years of smoking and lower systolic and diastolic blood pressures than the normal ABI group. The prevalence of diabetes, left ventricular hypertrophy, claudication, and coronary heart disease and mean values of fibrinogen, factor VIII activity, von Willebrand factor, lipoprotein (a), and carotid and popliteal intimal-medial thickness were similar between the two ABI groups. The risk factor profiles of the ABI>1.4 and >1.5 groups were also not statistically significantly different from that of the normal ABI group. Over a mean follow-up time of 12.2 years, the age, sex, and race-adjusted CVD event rates per 1000 person years were 8.1 in the normal ABI group, 7.6 in the ABI>1.3 group, 7.6 in the ABI>1.4 group, and 7.4 in the ABI>1.5 group. The CVD event rates of the high ABI groups were similar to that of the normal ABI group. Conclusion: Individuals with a high ABI are not characterized by a more adverse atherosclerosis risk factor profile and do not suffer greater CVD event rates than those with a normal ABI. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

: ObjectivesIn the current study, we hypothesized that beraprost would: 1) improve treadmill exercise performance and quality of life; and 2) decrease rates of ischemic events in patients with intermittent claudication.: BackgroundPrevious trials with beraprost sodium, an orally active prostaglandin I2 analogue, in the treatment of claudication in patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) have been inconsistent.: MethodsPatients with intermittent claudication (n = 897) were randomized to receive either 40 μg three times a day of beraprost with meals (n = 385) or placebo (n = 377) in a double-blinded manner for one year. The primary efficacy parameter was treadmill-measured maximum walking distance, as assessed at three and six months after randomization. Secondary efficacy parameters included treadmill-measured pain-free walking distance and change in quality of life.: ResultsThere was no significant improvement in maximum walking distance in the beraprost group (16.7%) as compared with the placebo group (14.6%, p = NS). Administration of beraprost did not improve the pain-free walking distance (p = NS between treatment groups), and there was no improvement in the quality-of-life measures between the treatment groups. The incidence of critical cardiovascular events was 7.3% in the beraprost group and 11.4% in the placebo group (p = NS). There was a significant reduction in the combination of cardiovascular death and myocardial infarction in the beraprost group (p = 0.01).: ConclusionsDespite previous investigations suggesting efficacy, these results indicate that beraprost is not an effective treatment to improve symptoms of intermittent claudication in patients with PAD. The potential benefit of beraprost on critical cardiovascular events would require confirmation in a larger prospective investigation. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]