Gardner Andrew W, Montgomery Polly S, Afaq Azhar
CMRI Metabolic Research Center; University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, 1122 NE 13th Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73117, USA.
J Vasc Surg. 2007 Jul;46(1):79-86. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2007.02.037. Epub 2007 May 30.
This study compared the exercise performance of patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) who have different types of exertional leg pain.
Patients with PAD were classified into one of four groups according to the San Diego Claudication Questionnaire: intermittent claudication (n = 406), atypical exertional leg pain causing patients to stop (n = 125), atypical exertional leg pain in which patients were able to continue walking (n = 81), and leg pain on exertion and rest (n = 103). Patients were assessed on the primary outcome measures of ankle-brachial index (ABI), treadmill exercise measures, and ischemic window.
All patients experienced leg pain consistent with intermittent claudication during a standardized treadmill test. The mean (+/- SD) initial claudication distance (ICD) was similar (P = .642) among patients with intermittent claudication (168 +/- 160 meters), atypical exertional leg pain causing patients to stop (157 +/- 130 meters), atypical exertional leg pain in which patients were able to continue walking (180 +/- 149 meters), and leg pain on exertion and rest (151 +/- 136 meters). The absolute claudication distance (ACD) was similar (P = .648) in the four respective groups (382 +/- 232, 378 +/- 237, 400 +/- 245, and 369 +/- 236 meters). Similarly, the ischemic window, expressed as the area under the curve (AUC) after treadmill exercise, was similar (P = .863) in these groups (189 +/- 137, 208 +/- 183, 193 +/- 143, and 199 +/- 119 AUC).
PAD patients with different types of exertional leg pain, all limited by intermittent claudication during a standardized treadmill test, were remarkably similar in ICD, ACD, and ischemic window. Thus, the presence of ambulatory symptoms should be of primary clinical concern in evaluating PAD patients regardless of whether they are consistent with classic intermittent claudication.
本研究比较了患有不同类型运动性腿痛的外周动脉疾病(PAD)患者的运动表现。
根据圣地亚哥间歇性跛行问卷,将PAD患者分为四组之一:间歇性跛行(n = 406)、导致患者停止运动的非典型运动性腿痛(n = 125)、患者能够继续行走的非典型运动性腿痛(n = 81)以及运动和休息时均出现腿痛(n = 103)。对患者进行踝臂指数(ABI)、跑步机运动测量和缺血窗口等主要结局指标的评估。
在标准化跑步机测试期间,所有患者均经历了与间歇性跛行一致的腿痛。间歇性跛行患者(168±160米)、导致患者停止运动的非典型运动性腿痛患者(157±130米)、患者能够继续行走的非典型运动性腿痛患者(180±149米)以及运动和休息时均出现腿痛的患者(15±136米)之间的平均(±标准差)初始跛行距离(ICD)相似(P = 0.642)。四组各自的绝对跛行距离(ACD)相似(P = 0.648)(分别为382±232、378±237、400±245和369±236米)。同样,以跑步机运动后的曲线下面积(AUC)表示的缺血窗口在这些组中相似(P = 0.863)(分别为189±±137、208±183、193±143和199±119 AUC)。
患有不同类型运动性腿痛的PAD患者,在标准化跑步机测试期间均受间歇性跛行限制,其ICD、ACD和缺血窗口非常相似。因此,在评估PAD患者时,无论其症状是否与典型的间歇性跛行一致,动态症状的存在都应是主要的临床关注点。