4.7 Article

Sulodexide in the treatment of intermittent claudication - Results of a randomized, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled study

期刊

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 23, 期 13, 页码 1057-1065

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1053/euhj.2001.3033

关键词

peripheral artery disease; claudication; fibrinogen; sulodexide

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims Patients with peripheral arterial obstructive disease require treatment to prevent major cardiovascular events and to relieve intermittent claudication. The walking performance of peripheral arterial obstructive disease patients was used to evaluate the usefulness of sulodexide, a glycosaminoglycan containing fast moving heparin and dermatan sulphate. Methods and Results A randomized, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was performed in 286 patients with Leriche-Fontaine stage 11 peripheral arterial obstructive disease. Patients received placebo (n = 143) or sulodexide (n = 143) for 27 weeks. The primary end-point was the doubling of the pain-free walking distance at the end of treatment, and this was achieved by 23.8% of patients treated with sulodexide and 9.1% of those on placebo (P=0.001). The pain-free walking distance increased on average ( SE) by 83.2 +/- 8.6 m (+64.7% from baseline) with sulodexide and 36.7 +/- 6.2 m (+29.9% from baseline) with placebo (P=0.001). The maximum walking distance increased by 142.3 +/- 15.8 m (+76.0% from base-line) and 54.5 +/- 8.4 m (+27.9% from baseline) (P<0.001), respectively. Results for patients with type 11 diabetes were similar to those for non-diabetic patients. Plasma fibrinogen decreased with sulodexide, but increased with placebo. Conclusion Sulodexide improved the walking ability of peripheral arterial obstructive disease patients to a significantly greater extent than placebo, with a concurrent significant decrease in fibrinogen. The treatment was well tolerated. (C) 2002 The European Society of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据