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

Non-invasive management of peripheral arterial disease.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is common and symptoms can be debilitating and lethal. Risk management, exercise, radiological and surgical intervention are all valuable therapies, but morbidity and mortality rates from this disease are increasing. Circulatory enhancement can be achieved using simple medical electronic devices, with claims of minimal adverse side effects. The evidence for these is variable, prompting a review of the available literature. METHODS: Embase and Medline were interrogated for full text articles in humans and written in English. Any external medical devices used in the management of peripheral arterial disease were included if they had objective outcome data. RESULTS: Thirty-one papers met inclusion criteria, but protocols were heterogenous. The medical devices reported were intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC), electronic nerve (NMES) or muscle stimulators (EMS), and galvanic electrical dressings. In patients with intermittent claudication, IPC devices increase popliteal artery velocity (49-70 %) and flow (49-84 %). Gastrocnemius EMS increased superficial femoral artery flow by 140 %. Over 4.5-6 months IPC increased intermittent claudication distance (ICD) (97-150 %) and absolute walking distance (AWD) (84-112 %), with an associated increase in quality of life. NMES of the calf increased ICD and AWD by 82 % and 61-150 % at 4 weeks, and 26 % and 34 % at 8 weeks. In patients with critical limb ischaemia IPC reduced rest pain in 40-100 % and was associated with ulcer healing rates of 26 %. IPC had an early limb salvage rate of 58-83 % at 1-3 months, and 58-94 % at 1.5-3.5 years. No studies have reported the use of EMS or NMES in the management of CLI. CONCLUSION: There is evidence to support the use of IPC in the management of claudication and CLI. There is a building body of literature to support the use of electrical stimulators in PAD, but this is low level to date. Devices may be of special benefit to those with limited exercise capacity, and in non-reconstructable critical limb ischaemia. Galvanic stimulation is not recommended

Incidence of peripheral arterial disease in the ARTPER population cohort after 5 years of follow-up

BACKGROUND: To know the epidemiology (prevalence, incidence, progression and morbidity and mortality associated) of peripheral artery disease in general population and the factors associated with this progression is essential to know the evolution of atherosclerosis and develop preventive strategies. The aim of the study was to determine the incidence of PAD after 5 years of follow-up population-based cohort ARTPER, and the evolution of Ankle brachial Index (ABI) in this period. METHODS: Peripheral artery disease incidence analysis after 5 years of follow-up of 3786 subjects > 50 years old. Peripheral artery disease incident when the second cross section Ankle brachial Index was <0.9 in any of the lower limbs, with normal baseline (0.9 to 1.4). RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2013 2762 individuals (77 % participation) were re-examined . Finally analyzed 2256 subjects (after excluding pathological Ankle brachial Index) followed for 4.9 years (range 3.8 to 5.8 years), totalling 11,106 person-years. Peripheral artery disease 95 new cases were detected, representing an incidence of 4.3 % at 5 years and 8.6 per 1000 person-years (95 % CI 6.9 to 10.5) being higher in men (10.2, 95 % CI 7.4 to 13.5) than in women (7.5, 95 % CI 5.5 to 9.9). Linear correlation between the baseline Ankle brachial Index and the second cross section was low (r = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of peripheral artery disease in ARTPER cohort was 8.6 cases per 1000 person-years, being higher in men, especially <65 years. The correlation between two measures Ankle brachial Index after 5 years of follow-up was low. One might consider whether Ankle brachial Index repeated measures could improve the correlation

Associations between systolic interarm differences in blood pressure and cardiovascular disease outcomes and mortality: Individual participant data meta-analysis, development and validation of a prognostic algorithm: The INTERPRESS-IPD Collaboration

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