The Peripheral Arterial disease study (PERART/ARTPER): prevalence and risk factors in the general population

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The early diagnosis of atherosclerotic disease is essential for developing preventive strategies in populations at high risk and acting when the disease is still asymptomatic. A low ankle-arm index is a good marker of vascular events and may be diminished without presenting symptomatology (silent peripheral arterial disease). The aim of the study is to know the prevalence and associated risk factors of peripheral arterial disease in the general population.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed a cross-sectional, multicentre, population-based study in 3786 individuals >49 years, randomly selected in 28 primary care centres in Barcelona (Spain). Peripheral arterial disease was evaluated using the ankle-arm index. Values < 0.9 were considered as peripheral arterial disease.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The prevalence (95% confidence interval) of peripheral arterial disease was 7.6% (6.7-8.4), (males 10.2% (9.2-11.2), females 5.3% (4.6-6.0); <it>p </it>< 0.001).</p> <p>Multivariate analysis showed the following risk factors: male sex [odds ratio (OR) 1.62; 95% confidence interval 1.01-2.59]; age OR 2.00 per 10 years (1.64-2.44); inability to perform physical activity [OR 1.77 (1.17-2.68) for mild limitation to OR 7.08 (2.61-19.16) for breathless performing any activity]; smoking [OR 2.19 (1.34-3.58) for former smokers and OR 3.83 (2.23-6.58) for current smokers]; hypertension OR 1.85 (1.29-2.65); diabetes OR 2.01 (1.42-2.83); previous cardiovascular disease OR 2.19 (1.52-3.15); hypercholesterolemia OR 1.55 (1.11-2.18); hypertriglyceridemia OR 1.55 (1.10-2.19). Body mass index ≥25 Kg/m²OR 0.57 (0.38-0.87) and walking >7 hours/week OR 0.67 (0.49-0.94) were found as protector factors.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The prevalence of peripheral arterial disease is low, higher in males and increases with age in both sexes. In addition to previously described risk factors we found a protector effect in physical exercise and overweight.</p

Associations between systolic interarm differences in blood pressure and cardiovascular disease outcomes and mortality

Systolic interarm differences in blood pressure have been associated with all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease. We undertook individual participant data meta-analyses to (1) quantify independent associations of systolic interarm difference with mortality and cardiovascular events; (2) develop and validate prognostic models incorporating interarm difference, and (3) determine whether interarm difference remains associated with risk after adjustment for common cardiovascular risk scores. We searched for studies recording bilateral blood pressure and outcomes, established agreements with collaborating authors, and created a single international dataset: the Inter-arm Blood Pressure Difference - Individual Participant Data (INTERPRESS-IPD) Collaboration. Data were merged from 24 studies (53 827 participants). Systolic interarm difference was associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality: continuous hazard ratios 1.05 (95% CI, 1.02–1.08) and 1.06 (95% CI, 1.02–1.11), respectively, per 5 mm Hg systolic interarm difference. Hazard ratios for all-cause mortality increased with interarm difference magnitude from a ≥5 mm Hg threshold (hazard ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.01–1.14]). Systolic interarm differences per 5 mm Hg were associated with cardiovascular events in people without preexisting disease, after adjustment for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (hazard ratio, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.00–1.08]), Framingham (hazard ratio, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.01–1.08]), or QRISK cardiovascular disease risk algorithm version 2 (QRISK2) (hazard ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.06–1.18]) cardiovascular risk scores. Our findings confirm that systolic interarm difference is associated with increased all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular events. Blood pressure should be measured in both arms during cardiovascular assessment. A systolic interarm difference of 10 mm Hg is proposed as the upper limit of normal

Interventions in the management of infection in the foot in diabetes : a systematic review

The optimal approaches to managing diabetic foot infections remain a challenge for clinicians. Despite an exponential rise in publications investigating different treatment strategies, the various agents studied generally produce comparable results, and high‐quality data are scarce. In this systematic review, we searched the medical literature using the PubMed and Embase databases for published studies on the treatment of diabetic foot infections as of June 2018. This systematic review is an update of previous reviews, the first of which was undertaken in 2010 and the most recent in 2014, by the infection committee of the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot. We defined the context of literature by formulating clinical questions of interest, then developing structured clinical questions (PICOs) to address these. We only included data from controlled studies of an intervention to prevent or cure a diabetic foot infection. Two independent reviewers selected articles for inclusion and then assessed their relevant outcomes and the methodological quality. Our literature search identified a total of 15 327 articles, of which we selected 48 for full‐text review; we added five more studies discovered by means other than the systematic literature search. Among these selected articles were 11 high‐quality studies published in the last 4 years and two Cochrane systematic reviews. Overall, the outcomes in patients treated with the different antibiotic regimens for both skin and soft tissue infection and osteomyelitis of the diabetic foot were broadly equivalent across studies, except that treatment with tigecycline was inferior to ertapenem (±vancomycin). Similar outcomes were also reported in studies comparing primarily surgical and predominantly antibiotic treatment strategies in selected patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis. There is insufficient high‐quality evidence to assess the effect of various adjunctive therapies, such as negative pressure wound therapy, topical ointments or hyperbaric oxygen, on infection related outcomes of the diabetic foot. In general, the quality of more recent trial designs are better in past years, but there is still a great need for further well‐designed trials to produce higher quality evidence to underpin our recommendations