4.4 Article

Clinical Outcome and Diverse Risk Factors for Different Therapeutic Target Locations of Peripheral Artery Disease

Journal

JOURNAL OF ATHEROSCLEROSIS AND THROMBOSIS
Volume 27, Issue 8, Pages 769-779

Publisher

JAPAN ATHEROSCLEROSIS SOC
DOI: 10.5551/jat.52647

Keywords

Endovascular therapy; Peripheral artery disease; Target location; Real-world data

Funding

  1. Vascular Disease Research Project of the Japan Research Promotion Society for Cardiovascular Diseases

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: Previous studies on peripheral artery disease (PAD) only enrolled patients with atherosclerotic lesion limited to any one of isolated locations (aortoiliac [Al], femoropopliteal [FP], and below the knee [BTK]). However, the interventions for PAD in a real-world clinical setting are often simultaneously performed for several different locations. Methods: We conducted a prospective multicenter study that included 2,230 patients with PAD who received intervention for lower extremity lesions in each area and across different areas. Patients were divided into 7 groups according to the combination of treatment locations. Overall survival (OS), major adverse limb events (MALEs), and risk factors for OS and MALES were statistically analyzed. Results: After adjustment for confounding factors, the attributable risk for OS was similar among isolated Al, FP, and BTK treatments. MALES increased in correlation with the number of treatment locations. Dialysis and critical limb ischemia were the common risk factors for OS and MALEs. However, the contribution of other factors such as type of drug usage was different according to treatment locations. Conclusions: In patients with PAD, OS was largely defined by comorbidities but not by lesion location. The background risk factors, underlying comorbidities, and event rates were different according to PAD location, suggesting that stratified treatment should be established for different patient populations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available