4.6 Article

Prevalence and clinical profile and management of peripheral arterial disease in elderly patients with diabetes

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 275-281

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2011.02.001

关键词

Elderly; Diabetes; Peripheral arterial disease

资金

  1. Sanofi Aventis Spain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) increases with age and diabetes. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of PAD in an elderly population with diabetes. Methods: This multicenter and cross-sectional study included patients > 70 years, with an established diagnosis of diabetes. PAD was defined as those patients with a history of revascularization or amputation due to ischemia, or a pathological ankle-brachial index (ABI). Adequate blood pressure (BP), LDL cholesterol and HbA1c control were considered as < 130/80 mm Hg, < 100 mg/dL and < 7.0%, respectively. Results: A total of 1462 patients were included. The most frequent cardiovascular risk factor and cardiovascular disease were hypertension (80.37%) and PAD (60.60% overall; 83.2% of those assisted by vascular surgeons vs 31.9% of those attended by other medical specialists; p < 0.001), respectively. However, when ABI was measured, 70.99% of the study population had PAD (80.2% of those assisted by vascular surgeons vs 59.6% of those attended by other medical specialists; p < 0.001). The predictors for a pathological ABI included male gender, smoking, dyslipidemia, family history of premature cardiovascular disease, sedentary lifestyle, diabetic-related complications, heart and cerebrovascular diseases. Although risk factors control was very poor, it was even lower in patients with PAD. Conclusions: The prevalence of PAD is high in diabetic elderly patients. The concomitance with other risk factors and cardiovascular diseases was very high. The ABI allowed increasing the diagnosis of PAD. (C) 2011 European Federation of Internal Medicine. Published by Elsevier B.V. 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

4.6
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