NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

  • This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.

This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.

Cover of Treatment Strategies for Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease

Treatment Strategies for Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease

Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, No. 118

Investigators: , MD, , MD, MPH, , MD, , MD, MBA, , MD, , PhD, , PhD, , MSLS, , MSLS, , MA, , PhD, and , MD, MHS.

Duke Evidence-based Practice Center
Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); .
Report No.: 13-EHC090-EF

Structured Abstract

Objectives:

For patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD), the optimal treatment for cardiovascular protection, symptom relief, preservation of walking and functional status, and prevention of amputation is not known. This review assessed the comparative effectiveness of antiplatelet therapy, medical therapy, exercise, and endovascular and surgical revascularization in PAD patients with intermittent claudication (IC) or critical limb ischemia (CLI).

Data sources:

We searched PubMed®, Embase®, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for relevant English-language studies published since January 1995.

Review methods:

Two investigators screened each abstract and full-text article for inclusion, abstracted the data, and performed quality ratings and evidence grading. Random-effects models were used to compute summary estimates of effects. A meta-analysis of direct comparisons was supplemented by a mixed-treatment analysis to incorporate data from placebo comparisons, head-to-head comparisons, and multiple treatment arms.

Results:

A total of 83 studies contributed evidence. Eleven studies—10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 1 observational study—evaluated the comparative effectiveness of antiplatelet agents. In asymptomatic PAD patients, there was no difference between aspirin and placebo for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke. In patients with IC, one RCT suggests that aspirin may reduce MI and composite vascular events compared with placebo but was inconclusive for other outcomes of interest. Another RCT involving IC patients suggests that clopidogrel is more effective than aspirin for reducing cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal MI, and composite vascular events. Clopidogrel and aspirin appear to be equivalent for prevention of nonfatal stroke, but the confidence interval was wide, making this conclusion less certain. In symptomatic (92% IC) and asymptomatic (8%) PAD patients, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT)—clopidogrel plus aspirin—had no impact on composite or individual outcomes. Similarly, in IC or CLI patients after unilateral bypass graft, one RCT showed no difference between DAPT and aspirin alone on nonfatal stroke and composite vascular events and was inconclusive for other outcomes. In patients with IC or CLI after an endovascular procedure, one RCT showed no difference between DAPT and aspirin alone in cardiovascular events or mortality at 6 months but was underpowered for those outcomes. Four additional studies assessed other antiplatelet comparisons but were too small to make any meaningful conclusions about effectiveness. Seven RCTs reported different types of bleeding events, and the use of antiplatelet agents was associated with higher rates of minor and moderate bleeding compared with placebo.

Thirty-five studies (27 RCTs, 8 observational) evaluated the comparative effectiveness of cilostazol, pentoxifylline, exercise therapy, endovascular revascularization, or surgical revascularization in IC patients, with the majority of the studies comparing one intervention with either placebo or one other intervention. In order to place all treatments in a common framework for comparison, we created a network meta-analysis. Although the data were still too sparse to definitively conclude which treatment is most effective, we were able to depict relative effect sizes and identify which treatments are clearly superior to placebo for which outcomes. No specific treatment had a statistically significant effect on all-cause mortality (12 RCTs). Exercise training improved maximal walking distance (16 RCTs), and exercise training and endovascular intervention improved initial claudication distance (12 RCTs) compared with usual care. Quality-of-life scores (10 RCTs) showed a significant improvement from cilostazol, exercise training, endovascular intervention, and surgical intervention compared with usual care. Seventeen RCTs reported safety concerns. Cilostazol was associated with higher rates of headache, dizziness, and diarrhea, while endovascular interventions were associated with more transfusions, arterial dissections/perforations, and hematomas compared with the usual care groups.

Twenty-three studies (1 RCT, 22 observational) in CLI patients and 12 studies (2 RCTs, 10 observational) in IC or CLI patients evaluated the comparative effectiveness of endovascular or surgical treatments. Long-term amputation-free survival and all-cause mortality were not different between the two treatments in the CLI population. Primary patency varied, but secondary patency rates appeared to favor endovascular interventions in the CLI population. In four observational studies comparing endovascular interventions with usual care, there was insufficient evidence on the comparative effect for all clinical outcomes. In observational studies of the IC-CLI population, there were fewer periprocedural complications from endovascular interventions, while RCTs showed lower rates in the surgical intervention arm.

Conclusions:

From a limited number of studies, it appears that aspirin has no benefit over placebo in the asymptomatic PAD patient; clopidogrel monotherapy is more beneficial than aspirin in the IC patient; and DAPT is not significantly better than aspirin at reducing cardiovascular events in patients with IC or CLI. For IC patients, exercise therapy, cilostazol, and endovascular intervention all had an effect on improving functional status and quality of life; the impact of these therapies on cardiovascular events and mortality is uncertain. The comparisons of endovascular and surgical revascularization in CLI are primarily from observational studies, and the heterogeneity of the results makes conclusions for all clinical outcomes less certain. Several advances in care in both medical therapy and invasive therapy have not been rigorously tested and thus provide an impetus for further research.

Contents

Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services1, Contract No. 290-2007-10066-I. Prepared by: Duke Evidence-based Practice Center, Durham, NC

Suggested citation:

Jones WS, Schmit KM, Vemulapalli S, Subherwal S, Patel MR, Hasselblad V, Heidenfelder BL, Chobot MM, Posey R, Wing L, Sanders GD, Dolor RJ. Treatment Strategies for Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 118. (Prepared by the Duke Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10066-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 13-EHC090-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; May 2013. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.

This report is based on research conducted by the Duke Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-2007-10066-I). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients.

This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied.

None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.

1

540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; www​.ahrq.gov

Bookshelf ID: NBK148574PMID: 23844447

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (3.8M)

Similar articles in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...