Cucato Gabriel, Longano Paulo Pl, Perren Daniel, Ritti-Dias Raphael M, Saxton John M
Department of Sport, Exercise, and Rehabilitation, Northumbria University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK.
Ciências da Reabilitação, Universidade Nove de Julho, São Paulo, Brazil.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 May 2;5(5):CD014736. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014736.pub2.
Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is characterised by obstruction or narrowing of the large arteries of the lower limbs, usually caused by atheromatous plaques. Most people with PAD who experience intermittent leg pain (intermittent claudication) are typically treated with secondary prevention strategies, including medical management and exercise therapy. Lower limb revascularisation may be suitable for people with significant disability and those who do not show satisfactory improvement after conservative treatment. Some studies have suggested that lower limb revascularisation for PAD may not confer significantly more benefits than supervised exercise alone for improved physical function and quality of life. It is proposed that supervised exercise therapy as adjunctive treatment after successful lower limb revascularisation may confer additional benefits, surpassing the effects conferred by either treatment alone.
To assess the effects of a supervised exercise programme versus standard care following successful lower limb revascularisation in people with PAD.
We searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and two trial registers, most recently on 14 March 2023.
We included randomised controlled trials which compared supervised exercise training following lower limb revascularisation with standard care following lower limb revascularisation in adults (18 years and older) with PAD.
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were maximum walking distance or time (MWD/T) on the treadmill, six-minute walk test (6MWT) total distance, and pain-free walking distance or time (PFWD/T) on the treadmill. Our secondary outcomes were changes in the ankle-brachial index, all-cause mortality, changes in health-related quality-of-life scores, reintervention rates, and changes in subjective measures of physical function. We analysed continuous data by determining the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI), and dichotomous data by determining the odds ratio (OR) with corresponding 95% CI. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
We identified seven studies involving 376 participants. All studies involved participants who received either additional supervised exercise or standard care after lower limb revascularisation. The studies' exercise programmes varied, and included supervised treadmill walking, combined exercise, and circuit training. The duration of exercise therapy ranged from six weeks to six months; follow-up time ranged from six weeks to five years. Standard care also varied between studies, including no treatment or advice to stop smoking, lifestyle modifications, or best medical treatment. We classified all studies as having some risk of bias concerns. The certainty of the evidence was very low due to the risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. The meta-analysis included only a subset of studies due to concerns regarding data reporting, heterogeneity, and bias in most published research. The evidence was of very low certainty for all the review outcomes. Meta-analysis comparing changes in maximum walking distance from baseline to end of follow-up showed no improvement (MD 159.47 m, 95% CI -36.43 to 355.38; I = 0 %; 2 studies, 89 participants). In contrast, exercise may improve the absolute maximum walking distance at the end of follow-up compared to standard care (MD 301.89 m, 95% CI 138.13 to 465.65; I = 0 %; 2 studies, 108 participants). Moreover, we are very uncertain if there are differences in the changes in the six-minute walk test total distance from baseline to treatment end between exercise and standard care (MD 32.6 m, 95% CI -17.7 to 82.3; 1 study, 49 participants), and in the absolute values at the end of follow-up (MD 55.6 m, 95% CI -2.6 to 113.8; 1 study, 49 participants). Regarding pain-free walking distance, we are also very uncertain if there are differences in the mean changes in PFWD from baseline to treatment end between exercise and standard care (MD 167.41 m, 95% CI -11 to 345.83; I = 0%; 2 studies, 87 participants). We are very uncertain if there are differences in the absolute values of ankle-brachial index at the end of follow-up between the intervention and standard care (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.12; I = 62%; 2 studies, 110 participants), in mortality rates at the end of follow-up (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.00; I = 0%; 6 studies, 346 participants), health-related quality of life at the end of follow-up for the physical (MD 0.73, 95% CI -5.87 to 7.33; I = 64%; 2 studies, 105 participants) and mental component (MD 1.04, 95% CI -6.88 to 8.95; I = 70%; 2 studies, 105 participants) of the 36-item Short Form Health Survey. Finally, there may be little to no difference in reintervention rates at the end of follow-up between the intervention and standard care (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.23 to 3.65; I = 65%; 5 studies, 252 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very uncertain evidence that additional exercise therapy after successful lower limb revascularisation may improve absolute maximal walking distance at the end of follow-up compared to standard care. Evidence is also very uncertain about the effects of exercise on pain-free walking distance, six-minute walk test distance, quality of life, ankle-brachial index, mortality, and reintervention rates. Although it is not possible to confirm the effectiveness of supervised exercise compared to standard care for all outcomes, studies did not report any harm to participants from this intervention after lower limb revascularisation. Overall, the evidence incorporated into this review was very uncertain, and additional evidence is needed from large, well-designed, randomised controlled studies to more conclusively demonstrate the role additional exercise therapy has after lower limb revascularisation in people with PAD.
外周动脉疾病(PAD)的特征是下肢大动脉阻塞或狭窄,通常由动脉粥样硬化斑块引起。大多数经历间歇性腿痛(间歇性跛行)的PAD患者通常采用二级预防策略进行治疗,包括药物治疗和运动疗法。下肢血运重建可能适用于有严重残疾的患者以及那些在保守治疗后未显示出满意改善的患者。一些研究表明,对于改善身体功能和生活质量,PAD的下肢血运重建可能并不比单纯的监督运动带来更多益处。有人提出,在成功进行下肢血运重建后,将监督运动疗法作为辅助治疗可能会带来额外的益处,超过单独任何一种治疗的效果。
评估在PAD患者成功进行下肢血运重建后,监督运动计划与标准护理的效果。
我们检索了Cochrane血管专科注册库、CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase、另外两个数据库以及两个试验注册库,最近一次检索时间为2023年3月14日。
我们纳入了随机对照试验,这些试验比较了下肢血运重建后接受监督运动训练与下肢血运重建后接受标准护理的18岁及以上PAD成年患者。
我们采用标准的Cochrane方法。我们的主要结局是跑步机上的最大步行距离或时间(MWD/T)、六分钟步行试验(6MWT)总距离以及跑步机上的无痛步行距离或时间(PFWD/T)。我们的次要结局是踝臂指数的变化、全因死亡率、健康相关生活质量评分的变化、再次干预率以及身体功能主观测量的变化。我们通过确定平均差(MD)和95%置信区间(CI)来分析连续数据,通过确定比值比(OR)及相应的95%CI来分析二分数据。我们使用GRADE来评估每个结局的证据确定性。
我们确定了7项研究,涉及376名参与者。所有研究都涉及在下肢血运重建后接受额外监督运动或标准护理的参与者。研究的运动计划各不相同,包括监督跑步机步行、联合运动和循环训练。运动疗法的持续时间从6周到6个月不等;随访时间从6周到5年不等。不同研究中的标准护理也有所不同,包括不治疗或戒烟建议、生活方式改变或最佳药物治疗。我们将所有研究归类为存在一些偏倚风险问题。由于存在偏倚风险、不一致性和不精确性,证据的确定性非常低。由于大多数已发表研究中存在数据报告、异质性和偏倚问题,荟萃分析仅纳入了一部分研究。对于所有综述结局,证据的确定性都非常低。比较从基线到随访结束时最大步行距离变化的荟萃分析显示没有改善(MD 159.47米,95%CI -36.43至355.38;I² = 0%;2项研究,89名参与者)。相比之下,与标准护理相比,运动可能会改善随访结束时的绝对最大步行距离(MD 301.89米,95%CI 138.13至465.65;I² = 0%;2项研究,108名参与者)。此外,我们非常不确定运动与标准护理之间从基线到治疗结束时六分钟步行试验总距离变化是否存在差异(MD 32.6米,95%CI -17.7至82.3;1项研究,49名参与者),以及随访结束时的绝对值是否存在差异(MD 55.6米,95%CI -2.6至113.8;1项研究,49名参与者)。关于无痛步行距离,我们也非常不确定运动与标准护理之间从基线到治疗结束时PFWD平均变化是否存在差异(MD 167.41米,95%CI -11至345.83;I² = 0%;2项研究,87名参与者)。我们非常不确定干预与标准护理之间随访结束时踝臂指数绝对值是否存在差异(MD 0.01,95%CI -0.11至0.12;I² = 62%;2项研究,110名参与者),随访结束时死亡率是否存在差异(OR 0.92,95%CI 0.42至2.00;I² = 0%;6项研究,346名参与者),36项简短健康调查问卷中随访结束时身体(MD 0.73,95%CI -5.87至7.33;I² = 64%;2项研究,105名参与者)和精神成分(MD 1.04,95%CI -6.88至8.95;I² = 70%;2项研究,105名参与者)的健康相关生活质量是否存在差异。最后,干预与标准护理之间随访结束时再次干预率可能几乎没有差异(OR 0.91,95%CI 0.23至3.65;I² = 65%;5项研究,252名参与者)。
证据非常不确定,表明与标准护理相比,成功进行下肢血运重建后额外的运动疗法可能会改善随访结束时的绝对最大步行距离。关于运动对无痛步行距离、六分钟步行试验距离、生活质量、踝臂指数、死亡率和再次干预率的影响,证据也非常不确定。尽管无法证实与标准护理相比监督运动对所有结局的有效性,但研究未报告下肢血运重建后这种干预对参与者有任何危害。总体而言,本综述纳入的证据非常不确定,需要来自大型、设计良好的随机对照研究的更多证据,以更确凿地证明额外运动疗法在PAD患者下肢血运重建后的作用。