Natural history of stenosis in the iliac arteries in patients with intermittent claudication undergoing clinical treatment.

Revista do Hospital das Clinicas Pub Date : 2004-12-01 Epub Date: 2005-01-11 DOI:10.1590/s0041-87812004000600006
Fernando Bocchino Ferrari, Nelson Wolosker, Ruben Aizyn Rosoky, Giuseppe D'Ippolito, Angela Maria Borri Wolosker, Pedro Puech-Leão
{"title":"Natural history of stenosis in the iliac arteries in patients with intermittent claudication undergoing clinical treatment.","authors":"Fernando Bocchino Ferrari,&nbsp;Nelson Wolosker,&nbsp;Ruben Aizyn Rosoky,&nbsp;Giuseppe D'Ippolito,&nbsp;Angela Maria Borri Wolosker,&nbsp;Pedro Puech-Leão","doi":"10.1590/s0041-87812004000600006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Inspite of the long experience with the treatment of intermittent claudication, little is known about the natural history of stenotic lesions in the iliac segment. With the advent of endovascular treatment, this knowledge has become important.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fifty-two stenosis, diagnosed using arteriography, in 38 claudicant patients were analyzed. After a minimum time interval of 6 months, a magnetic resonance angiography was performed to determine whether there was arterial occlusion. The primary factors that could influence the progression of a stenosis were analyzed, such as risk factors (smoking, hypertension, diabetes, sex, and age), compliance with clinical treatment, initial degree of stenosis, site of the stenosis, and length of follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The average length of follow-up was 39 months. From the 52 lesions analyzed, 13 (25%) evolved to occlusion. When occlusion occurred, there was clinical deterioration in 63.2% of cases. This association was statistically significant (P = .002). There was no statistically significant association of the progression of the lesion with the degree or site of stenosis, compliance with treatment, or length of follow-up. Patients who evolved to occlusion were younger (P = .02). The logistic regression model showed that the determinant factors for clinical deterioration were arterial occlusion and noncompliance with clinical treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The progression of a stenosis to occlusion, which occurred in 25% of the cases, caused clinical deterioration. Clinical treatment was important, but it did not forestall the arterial occlusion. Prevention of occlusion could be achieved by early endovascular intervention or with the development of drugs that might stabilize the atherosclerotic plaque.</p>","PeriodicalId":76453,"journal":{"name":"Revista do Hospital das Clinicas","volume":"59 6","pages":"341-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1590/s0041-87812004000600006","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista do Hospital das Clinicas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/s0041-87812004000600006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2005/1/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Purpose: Inspite of the long experience with the treatment of intermittent claudication, little is known about the natural history of stenotic lesions in the iliac segment. With the advent of endovascular treatment, this knowledge has become important.

Methods: Fifty-two stenosis, diagnosed using arteriography, in 38 claudicant patients were analyzed. After a minimum time interval of 6 months, a magnetic resonance angiography was performed to determine whether there was arterial occlusion. The primary factors that could influence the progression of a stenosis were analyzed, such as risk factors (smoking, hypertension, diabetes, sex, and age), compliance with clinical treatment, initial degree of stenosis, site of the stenosis, and length of follow-up.

Results: The average length of follow-up was 39 months. From the 52 lesions analyzed, 13 (25%) evolved to occlusion. When occlusion occurred, there was clinical deterioration in 63.2% of cases. This association was statistically significant (P = .002). There was no statistically significant association of the progression of the lesion with the degree or site of stenosis, compliance with treatment, or length of follow-up. Patients who evolved to occlusion were younger (P = .02). The logistic regression model showed that the determinant factors for clinical deterioration were arterial occlusion and noncompliance with clinical treatment.

Conclusions: The progression of a stenosis to occlusion, which occurred in 25% of the cases, caused clinical deterioration. Clinical treatment was important, but it did not forestall the arterial occlusion. Prevention of occlusion could be achieved by early endovascular intervention or with the development of drugs that might stabilize the atherosclerotic plaque.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
接受临床治疗的间歇性跛行患者髂动脉狭窄的自然病史。
目的:尽管有治疗间歇性跛行的长期经验,但对髂节狭窄病变的自然历史知之甚少。随着血管内治疗的出现,这一知识变得非常重要。方法:对38例跛行患者经动脉造影诊断的52例狭窄进行分析。最小时间间隔为6个月后,进行磁共振血管造影以确定是否有动脉闭塞。分析影响狭窄进展的主要因素,如危险因素(吸烟、高血压、糖尿病、性别、年龄)、临床治疗依从性、初始狭窄程度、狭窄部位、随访时间等。结果:平均随访时间39个月。在分析的52个病变中,13个(25%)发展为闭塞。发生咬合后,63.2%的病例出现临床恶化。这种关联具有统计学意义(P = 0.002)。病变的进展与狭窄的程度或部位、治疗依从性或随访时间没有统计学意义。发展为闭塞的患者较年轻(P = .02)。logistic回归模型显示,动脉闭塞和不遵医嘱是导致临床恶化的决定因素。结论:25%的病例由狭窄发展为闭塞导致临床恶化。临床治疗很重要,但不能预防动脉闭塞。预防闭塞可以通过早期血管内干预或稳定动脉粥样硬化斑块的药物来实现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Fetal programming and future disease. Retrospective evaluation of bone pain palliation after samarium-153-EDTMP therapy. Hypertension in employees of a University General Hospital. Adverse life events and coping skills in panic disorder. Human identification and analysis of DNA in bones.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1