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]

Objective: Datasets regarding patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) have almost universally been restricted to single geographic regions. We aimed to obtain data on the risk factor profile and cardiovascular (CV) co-morbidity among multi-ethnic patients with known AAA in the global REACH (REduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health) Registry. Methods: The REACH Registry is an international, prospective, observational out-patient registry enrolling out-patients ≥45 years of age with established coronary artery disease (CAD), cerebrovascular disease (CVD) or peripheral arterial disease (PAD) or with at least three atherothrombotic risk factors. This report includes observations pertaining to 68,236 out-patients enrolled in 44 countries. Main outcome measures: Gender, ethnic origin, CV risk factors, established atherosclerotic disease (CAD, CVD and PAD) at baseline, and CV outcome events at 1-year were compared in patients with and without AAA. Results: An AAA was reported in 1722 (2.5%) of 68,236 out-patients enrolled in the REACH Registry. Older age (73 ± 8 vs 68 ± 10, P < .0001), male gender (81% vs 63%, P < .0001), White ethnicity (79% vs 67%, P < .0001) and a history of smoking (81% vs 55%, P < .0001) were independently related to the diagnosis of AAA. There was a weaker association with hypertension or hypercholesterolemia, and an inverse relation with diabetes. Fatal and non-fatal coronary and cerebrovascular event rates were not different between the AAA and non-AAA cohorts, but individuals with AAA suffered increased rates of other cardiovascular deaths (1.39% vs 0.94%, P = .0135), hospitalizations for atherothrombotic events (14.1% vs 9.3%, P < .0001) due to increased rates of revascularization procedures, and new or worsening PAD (3.7% vs 1.3%, P < .0001) at 1-year follow-up. Conclusion: This study, the largest published to date, presents the CV risk profile and outcome of patients with an established diagnosis of AAA from a cohort of patients with either overt manifestations of CV disease or multiple risk factors, and further defines these patients in a multi-ethnic, global context. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Severe mitral regurgitation (MR), whether isolated or with coronary disease, was associated with adverse clinical outcomes. However, clinician practice is characterized by different thresholds for treatment. No data exist that described current practice patterns, factors that affected these patterns, or whether physicians followed American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines in clinical practice for patients with MR. Cardiovascular specialists were surveyed using e-mail, and 1,076 physicians completed the survey (71% response rate), including adult cardiologists (94%) and cardiac surgeons (5%) who practiced in the United States (78%), Canada (5%), and other nations (17%). Wide variations were noted regarding rates of referral of asymptomatic patients with severe MR for mitral valve repair. There was geographic and specialty-dependent heterogeneity in practice. Most physicians (65%) used medications to delay the progression of MR in the absence of guideline recommendations. A minority (28%) of respondents routinely quantitated MR by calculating the effective regurgitant orifice area. In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, MR severity was not assessed before the procedure by 1 in 4 providers, and the presence of MR frequently did not affect clinical care decisions. In conclusion, considerable variability existed in the clinical management of MR, particularly regarding referral of asymptomatic patients for mitral valve reparative surgery. Medications were frequently used to treat asymptomatic patients with MR in the absence of evidence of pharmacologic efficacy. MR was frequently not considered a relevant factor before treatment of patients with coexistent coronary artery disease. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]