| Literature DB >> 28367968 |
Barbara Rantner1,2, Barbara Kollerits1, Johannes Pohlhammer1, Marietta Stadler3,4, Claudia Lamina1, Slobodan Peric3, Peter Klein-Weigel5, Hannes Mühlthaler2,6, Gustav Fraedrich2, Florian Kronenberg1.
Abstract
Patients with intermittent claudication carry a high risk for cardiovascular complications. The TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) Group estimated a five-year overall mortality of 30% for these patients, the majority dying from cardiovascular causes. We investigated whether this evaluation is still applicable in nowadays patients. We therefore prospectively followed 255 male patients with intermittent claudication from the CAVASIC Study during 7 years for overall mortality, vascular morbidity and mortality and local PAD outcomes. Overall mortality reached 16.1% (n = 41). Most patients died from cancer (n = 20). Half of patients (n = 22; 8.6%) died within the first five years. Incident cardiovascular events were observed among 70 patients (27.5%), 54 (21.2%) during the first five years. Vascular mortality was low with 5.1% (n = 13) for the entire and 3.1% for the first five years of follow-up. Prevalent coronary artery disease did not increase the risk to die from all or vascular causes. PAD symptoms remained stable or improved in the majority of patients (67%). In summary, compared to TASC, the proportion of cardiovascular events did not markedly decrease over the last two decades. Vascular mortality, however, was low among our population. This indicates that nowadays patients more often survive cardiovascular events and a major number dies from cancer.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28367968 PMCID: PMC5377933 DOI: 10.1038/srep45833
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Baseline characteristics of patients with intermittent claudication and available follow-up information, further stratified into those with and without prevalent cardiovascular disease.
| Total group n = 255 | PAD + CVD (n = 72) | PAD only (n = 183) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 59 ± 6 [55;60;63] | 60.1 ± 5.6 [56.5;61.0;64.5] | 58.0 ± 6.7 [53.0;58.0;63.0] | 0.02 |
| Body Mass Index (kg/m2) | 26.8 ± 3.9 | 28 ± 4.0 | 26.3 ± 3.8 | 0.001 |
| Smoking (smokers/former smokers/non-smokers), n (%) | 134/106/12 (53;42;5) | 31/39/2 (43;54;3) | 103/67/10 (57;37;6) | 0.05 |
| Diabetes Mellitus, n (%) | 39 (15) | 16 (22) | 23 (13) | 0.05 |
| Total cholesterol (mg/dL) | 205 ± 41 | 191 ± 42 | 211 ± 39 | <0.001 |
| LDL cholesterol (mg/dL) | 132 ± 37 | 120 ± 31 | 137 ± 38 | 0.001 |
| HDL cholesterol (mg/dL) | 49.4 ± 13.6 [41.0;48.0;55.0] | 46.6 ± 10.9 [39;46;52] | 50.5 ± 14.4 [42;48;57] | 0.04 |
| Triglycerides (mg/dL) | 173 ± 123 [94;135;213] | 183 ± 158 [101;131;231] | 169 ± 106 [93;139;209] | 0.72 |
| C-reactive protein (mg/L) | 6.4 ± 10.9 [2.2;1.4.2;7.0] | 5.6 ± 4.6 [2.2;4.5;7.1] | 6.8 ± 12.5 [2.2;1.4.1;6.9] | 0.71 |
| Creatinine (mg/dL) | 0.98 ± 0.2 [0.87;0.96;1.1] | 1.01 ± 0.2 [0.89;1.0;1.1] | 0.97 ± 0.2 [0.85;0.95;1.01] | 0.03 |
| eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) | 85 ± 15 | 81 ± 14 | 86 ± 15 | 0.02 |
| Albumin (g/dL) | 4.4 ± 0.5 | 4.5 ± 0.5 | 4.4 ± 0.4 | 0.22 |
| Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 151 ± 20 [135;150;165] | 148 ± 21 [130;150;165] | 152 ± 19 [140;150;165] | 0.20 |
| Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 83 ± 10 [80;80;90] | 81 ± 10 [75;80;90] | 84 ± 10 [80;80;90] | 0.04 |
| Hypertension, n (%)a | 222 (87) | 69 (96) | 153 (84) | 0.009 |
| Ankle-brachial indexb | 0.72 ± 0.23 | 0.72 ± 0.23 | 0.72 ± 0.24 | 0.84 |
| Intervention due to PAD, n (%) | 118 (46) | 36 (50) | 82 (45) | 0.45 |
| ACE inhibitor, n (%) | 79 (31) | 33 (46) | 46 (26) | 0.002 |
| Beta blocker, n (%) | 47 (18) | 27 (38) | 20 (11) | <0.001 |
| Calcium antagonist, n (%) | 40 (16) | 18 (25) | 22 (12) | 0.01 |
| Angiotensin receptor blockers, n (%) | 26 (10) | 11 (15) | 15 (9) | 0.11 |
| Diuretics, n (%) | 55 (22) | 25 (35) | 30 (17) | 0.002 |
| Statin use, n (%) | 108 (42) | 48 (67) | 60 (34) | <0.001 |
| Anticoagulants, n (%) | 18 (7) | 10 (14) | 8 (5) | 0.009 |
| Antiplatelet medication, n (%) | 193 (76) | 60 (83) | 133 (75) | 0.14 |
| Cardiovascular disease (CVD) at baseline, n (%) | 72 (28) | 72 (100) | n.a | n.a. |
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) [25th, 50th and 75th percentile in case of non-normal distribution] or number (%) (=percent considering missing values). eGFR denotes glomerular filtration rate calculated according to the CKD-EPI equation16. aHypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mmHg, and/or receiving antihypertensive treatment. bThe lowest ABI value from 4 sites was used for data analysis1314. Individuals with ABI values > 1.30 were excluded from analysis on ABI. n.a. (not applicable).
Figure 1Cumulative incident curves illustrating probability for event (all-cause mortality, minor and major cardiovascular events) for the entire study population for the whole follow-up period.
Causes of death of patients with intermittent claudication and available follow-up information, illustrated for the first 5 years and the entire follow-up time.
| First 5 years of follow-up | Entire follow-up time | |
|---|---|---|
| Heart and/or renal failure | 5 | 10 |
| Myocardial infarction | 2 | 2 |
| Sudden cardiac death | 1 | 1 |
| Oropharynx-, larynx-, bronchial carcinoma | 5 | 9 |
| Gastrointestinal carcinoma (pancreatic-, hepatocellular-, colon carcinoma) | 4 | 5 |
| Prostate carcinoma | 2 | |
| Carcinoma of unknown origin | 1 | 3 |
| Squamous-cell carcinoma | 1 | |
| Pneumonia | 1 | 2 |
| Sepsis | 1 | |
Figure 2Mortality and cardiovascular complications in patients with intermittent claudication within five years (upper part of the graph) and additional events thereafter (below dotted line).
*31 patients suffering from a minor cardiovascular event within the first five years consecutively had major cardiovascular events within the first five years of follow-up (n = 2), and in the remaining follow-up period (n = 4).
Numbers of cumulative major and minor cardiovascular events in patients with intermittent claudication during the prospective follow-up, shown for the first 5 years and the entire follow-up time.
| First 5 years of follow-up | Entire follow-up time | |
|---|---|---|
| Fatal cardiovascular events (ICD10 Codes I00-I99) | 8b | 13b |
| Non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI)a | 14 | 21 |
| Ischemic cerebral infarctiona | 4 | 6 |
| Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA)a | 11 | 13 |
| Aortocoronary bypass | 9 | 10 |
| Angiographically proven coronary stenosis (CAG) ≥ 50%a | 4 | 5 |
| Transient ischemic attack (TIA)a | 6 | 9 |
| Carotid endarterectomy (CEA)a | 1 | 1 |
aTwo patients had a TIA (=first event) and an ischemic stroke (=second event), 1 patient had a CAG (=first event) and an ischemic stroke (=second event); 1 patient had a PTCA (=first event) and an ischemic stroke (=second event); 1 patient had a CEA (=first event) and a MI (=second event) and 1 patient had a TIA (=first event) and a MI (=second event): n = 6. In these patients, the first event was included in the minor and the second event in the major composite cardiovascular endpoint, respectively. bTwo patients (one within the first five years) suffered a fatal cardiovascular event and had a non-fatal event before and thus the non-fatal event was considered in the analysis of the major cardiovascular endpoint.
Figure 3Local PAD outcome of patients with intermittent claudication within the first five years of follow-up (upper part of the graph) and additional peripheral interventions thereafter (below dotted line).
*3 patients had different treatment techniques on both legs: all these patients were symptomatic on both legs when they were enrolled in the study. Two patients received endovascular treatment on one leg and underwent surgery on the other one (within the first five years of follow-up). The third patient had multiple surgeries on one leg (within the first five years of follow-up) and received endovascular treatment on the second leg (after the five year cut-off).
Figure 4(A) Cumulative incident curves for first PAD event during follow-up comparing those with and without PAD intervention at baseline. A slightly higher risk to get a PAD intervention during follow-up for those patients with an intervention at baseline compared to those without was observed (p = 0.051). (B) Cumulative incident curves for major PAD events during follow-up comparing those with and without PAD intervention at baseline. The risk to get a major PAD intervention during follow-up was marginally higher for patients with an intervention at baseline compared to those without but did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.085).