FOR ELECTRONIC DISTRIBUTION ONLY - The Sheridan Group

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 2 CV risk factors controlled and at target inpatients with or without PADinthe REACH Registry. P.P. Cacoub et al. /Atherosclerosis 204 (2009) e86–e92 e89 Number of risk factors controlled a Patients with PAD Patients without PAD P-value * n =8322 % b n =47492 % b
e90 P.P. Cacoub et al. /Atherosclerosis 204 (2009) e86–e92 Table 4 One year follow-up event rates a for patients with PAD whether isolated (PAD only group) or associated with concomitant CAD orCVD (polyvascular disease group) as a function of the number of cardiovascular risk factors at the target atbaseline. One year follow-up (%) PADonly PAD plus polyvascular disease Poor control (0–2 RFs Good control (3–5 RFs P-value Poor control (0–2 RFs Good control (3–5 RFs controlled) controlled) controlled) controlled) Frequency 1694 1373 2124 2720 Major CV events Non-fatal MI 1.15 [0.34; 1.96] 0.87 [0.20; 1.54] 0.5269 2.03 [1.14; 2.91] 1.29 [0.70; 1.88] 0.1475 Non-fatal stroke 1.07 [0.29; 1.84] 0.47 [0.03; 0.92] 0.1530 3.36 [2.17;4.55] 1.87 [1.14; 2.61] 0.0054 CV death 1.46 [0.61; 2.30] 1.42 [0.48; 2.36] 0.6238 3.19 [2.10;4.26] 3.74 [2.65; 4.81] 0.2005 MI/stroke/CV death 3.52 [2.16;4.86] 2.66 [1.45; 3.86] 0.1676 7.73 [6.05; 9.38] 6.48 [5.12; 7.82] 0.2690 MI/stroke/CV death +hosp 18.37 [15.85; 20.82] 17.65 [14.99; 20.22] 0.8123 26.43 [24.05; 28.73] 23.16 [21.04; 25.22] 0.0866 Total mortality 2.22 [1.20; 3.22] 2.74 [1.44; 4.01] 0.5960 4.53 [3.24; 5.79] 5.31 [4.03; 6.57] 0.1135 Progression of PAD Worsening of claudication 16.54 [14.10;18.90] 17.08 [14.42; 19.65] 0.6021 17.58 [15.43; 19.69] 15.66 [13.76; 17.52] 0.2175 Angioplasty/stent for PAD 5.26 [3.76; 6.73] 6.59 [4.73; 8.42] 0.1219 4.93 [3.67; 6.18] 5.16 [3.94; 6.37] 0.6173 Peripheral bypass surgery 4.84 [3.35; 6.32] 4.55 [3.04; 6.04] 0.7574 3.64 [2.53; 4.74] 3.40 [2.41; 4.38] 0.7294 Amputation 1.98 [1.02; 2.93] 2.26 [1.14; 3.36] 0.6198 1.77 [0.96; 2.57] 1.34 [0.74; 1.94] 0.2729 a Presented as event rates [95% CIs]. CV =cardiovascular; MI=myocardial infarction; PAD=peripheral artery disease. PAD only patients and polyvascular PAD patients had fewer reasons to account for undertreatment of atherothrombotic RFs in major CV events in association with good RF control. However, PADpatients. One is the lowperception of risk associated with PAD statistical significance FOR wasonlyreachedfor non-fatal ELECTRONIC stroke in poly- poly- compared with that associated with CAD orCVD. AUSnational vascular PADpatient group (P ( P =0.005). survey study reported alack ofphysician knowledge and attitudes The rate of major CV events increased step-wise from patients regarding the importance of atherothrombotic RF treatment in PAD with PADonly, to patients with CAD orCVD without PAD, and was patients [19]. [19].Insufficient Insufficient awareness by PADpatients of the risksof highestinpolyvascular patients (PAD and CAD ± CVD). Forexample, CV events and the importance of RF treatment influences lowrates the annual rate of CV death was 1.4%, 1.7% and 3.3%, respec- of RF control [20]. In addition, patient-targeted healthcare cam- tively, DISTRIBUTION inthese three groups (P ( P
Page 1 and 2: Atherosclerosis 204 (2009) e86-e92
Page 3: e88 P.P. Cacoub et al. /Atheroscler
Page 7: e92 P.P. Cacoub et al. /Atheroscler

FOR ELECTRONIC DISTRIBUTION ONLY - The Sheridan Group

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?