Antithrombotic therapy for postinterventional management of peripheral arterial disease

2020 ◽  
Vol 77 (4) ◽  
pp. 269-276
Author(s):  
Daria Zavgorodnyaya ◽  
Tamara B Knight ◽  
Mitchell J Daley ◽  
Pedro G Teixeira
Keyword(s):  
Peripheral Arterial Disease ◽  
Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Antithrombotic Therapy ◽  
Bypass Graft ◽  
Limb Ischemia ◽  
Arterial Disease ◽  
Acute Limb Ischemia ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Peripheral Arterial ◽  
Quality Evidence

Abstract Purpose Evidence on the use of antithrombotic pharmacotherapy in patients undergoing revascularization of lower extremities for symptomatic peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is reviewed. Summary Individuals with PAD can experience leg pain, intermittent claudication, critical limb ischemia, and acute limb ischemia. In such patients, revascularization may be indicated to improve the quality of life and to prevent amputations. Antithrombotic therapy is often intensified in the postrevascularization period to prevent restenosis of the index artery and to counteract the prothrombotic state induced by the intervention. Therapeutic modalities include dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), anticoagulation, a combination of antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy, and addition of cilostazol to single antiplatelet therapy. Subgroup analyses of data from randomized clinical trials provided low-quality evidence for the use of DAPT in patients with a below-knee prosthetic bypass graft and anticoagulation for those with a venous bypass graft. Cilostazol, when added to aspirin therapy, has been shown to prevent index vessel reocclusion after an endovascular intervention in patients at low risk for thrombosis in several small randomized trials. Conclusion There is a considerable paucity of high-quality evidence on the optimal antithrombotic regimen for patients undergoing lower extremity revascularization, with no particular therapy shown to consistently improve patient outcomes. The decision to initiate intensified antithrombotic therapy should include a close examination of its risk–benefit profile. The demonstrated benefit of such treatment is restricted to the prevention of index artery reocclusion, while an increased risk of bleeding may lead to significant morbidity and mortality.

Complex antithrombotic therapy and bleeding risk in patients with peripheral arterial disease

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Tseng ◽  
S Bhatt ◽  
M Girardo ◽  
D Liedl ◽  
P Wennberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peripheral Arterial Disease ◽  
Triple Therapy ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Antithrombotic Therapy ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Bleeding Risk ◽  
Arterial Disease ◽  
Risk Of Bleeding ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Peripheral Arterial

Abstract Introduction Antiplatelet therapy is the cornerstone of treatment for many atherosclerotic vascular pathologies including peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Patients with PAD often have comorbid conditions that require complex antithrombotic therapy, i.e. combined antiplatelet and anticoagulation. Methods All adult patients undergoing ankle brachial index (ABI) measurements were included in the study. ABI values between 1.00 and 1.40 were considered normal, and values below 1.00 or above 1.40 were considered PAD. Demographic, comorbidity and outcome data were obtained using diagnostic codes from the electronic health record. Three medication classes were analyzed: aspirin, non-aspirin oral antiplatelets (e.g. P2Y12 inhibitors) and oral anticoagulants (warfarin and the direct oral anticoagulants). Medication use was determined for patients who had been on a medication for at least one year. Cox proportional hazard analysis for the time to first bleeding event was analyzed. Bleeding was defined as any bleeding requiring medical evaluation (including clinically-relevant non-major bleeding and major bleeding). Results In all, 40,144 patients were included in the analysis (mean age 66±15, 43% female). Patients with PAD were more likely to be on double therapy (one antiplatelet with anticoagulation) (28% vs 19%) and triple therapy (dual antiplatelet with anticoagulation) (10% vs 4%). Unadjusted hazard ratios for bleeding risk showed increased risk of bleeding for patients with PAD (1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08–1.29), though the association is no longer present after adjustment for antithrombotic therapy. Adjusting for age, sex and PAD class, compared to no antithrombotic therapy, there was increased risk of bleeding for monotherapy (1.91, 95% CI: 1.61–2.26), double therapy (3.40, 95% CI: 2.89–4.00) and triple therapy (5.00, 95% CI: 4.21–5.96). Among medications, aspirin and anticoagulant use was independently associated with the greatest increase in risk of bleeding. Conclusion Patients in PAD are at increased risk of bleeding secondary to antithrombotic therapy. Complex antithrombotic therapy with double or triple therapy confer additional bleeding risk, particularly regimens containing aspirin and oral anticoagulants. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

scholarly journals A diabeteses láb ischaemiás eredete. Epidemiológia, a diagnózis nehézségei, prevenciós és revascularisatiós lehetőségek

2017 ◽  
Vol 158 (6) ◽  
pp. 203-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Endre Kolossváry ◽  
Zoltán Bánsághi ◽  
Gábor Viktor Szabó ◽  
Zoltán Járai ◽  
Katalin Farkas
Keyword(s):  
Peripheral Arterial Disease ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Clinical Manifestations ◽  
Limb Ischemia ◽  
Arterial Disease ◽  
Diagnostic Tools ◽  
Public Health Issue ◽  
Effective Prevention ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Peripheral Arterial

Abstract: “Diabetic foot” as definition covers a multifactorial clinical condition. According to the recent epidemiological data, the role of lower limb ischemia is getting more influential over other pathological causes, like neuropathy, infections and bone or soft tissue deformity. In diabetes, vascular disease leads to increased risk for leg ulcers and minor or major amputations. The traditional diagnostic tools for recognition of peripheral arterial disease have limited value because of diabetes specific clinical manifestations. Available vascular centers with special expertise and diagnostic tools are the prerequisite for efficient diagnosis supporting timely recognition of peripheral arterial disease. In course of treatment of diabetic foot with ischemic origin, beyond effective medical treatment revascularization (open vascular surgery or endovascular procedures) has paramount importance for prevention of limb loss. Vascular teams of vascular specialists, vascular surgeons and interventional radiologist in dedicated centers in multidisciplinary cooperation with other professions represent public health issue in effective prevention. Orv. Hetil., 2017, 158(6), 203–211.

Efficacy and safety of DOACs in patients with peripheral arterial disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Vascular ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 170853812098793
Author(s):  
Yuan-Su Zhang ◽  
Jin-Hui Chen ◽  
Tong Mei ◽  
Shuai Li ◽  
Yong-Ming Lu
Keyword(s):  
Peripheral Arterial Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Limb Ischemia ◽  
Arterial Disease ◽  
Cardiovascular Death ◽  
Target Lesion ◽  
Acute Limb Ischemia ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Myocardial Infraction ◽  
Peripheral Arterial

Background The efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with peripheral arterial disease are not completely understood. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to explore the effects of DOACs in this population. Methods We systematically searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science till April 2020 for relevant randomized controlled trials and observational studies, with no linguistic restrictions. The efficacy outcomes were cardiovascular death, stroke, myocardial infraction, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), acute limb ischemia, amputation, and target lesion revascularization. The safety outcome was major bleeding events. Random effects risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Results A total four randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis. Among peripheral arterial disease patients, DOACs did not reduce the risk of cardiovascular death (RR = 1.02 95%CI 0.75–1.37, P = 0.92), stroke (RR = 0.73 95%CI 0.46–1.14, P = 0.16), myocardial infraction (RR = 0.85 95%CI 0.70–1.03, P = 0.10), MACE (RR = 0.73 95%CI 0.46–1.14, P = 0.16), or amputation (RR = 0.73 95%CI 0.46–1.14, P = 0.16) compared with control. However, DOACs were associated with reduction in acute limb ischemia (RR = 0.67 95%CI 0.55–0.80, P < 0.01) and target lesion revascularization (RR = 0.89 95%CI 0.81–0.99, P = 0.02) at the expense of major bleeding events (RR = 1.43 95%CI 1.16–1.77, P < 0.01) compared with control. Conclusions Based on current evidence, no significant difference in cardiovascular death, stroke, myocardial infraction, MACE, and amputation was found when DOACs were compared to antiplatelet monotherapy. The benefits of preventing target lesion revascularization and acute limb ischemia were balanced by amplified risk of major bleeding. Larger randomized controlled trials are needed to figure out the uncertainty around efficacy and safety of medications for peripheral arterial disease.

scholarly journals Antithrombotic Treatment in Lower Extremity Peripheral Arterial Disease

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anders Gottsäter
Keyword(s):  
Peripheral Arterial Disease ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Combined Treatment ◽  
Limb Ischemia ◽  
Arterial Disease ◽  
Anticoagulant Treatment ◽  
Arterial Complications ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Peripheral Arterial

Lower extremity arteries might be affected by atherosclerotic peripheral arterial disease (PAD), or by embolization causing ischaemic symptoms. Patients with PAD often have widespread atherosclerosis, and progression of PAD is associated with increased risk for both other cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality. Peripheral arterial disease patients should therefore be offered both non-pharmacological and pharmacological secondary prevention to reduce the risk for future ischemic arterial complications. This review is focussed on the rationale for recommendations on antiplatelet and anticoagulant treatment in PAD. Asymptomatic PAD does not warrant either anticoagulant or antiplatelet treatment, whereas patients with ischaemic lower extremity symptoms such as intermittent claudication or critical limb ischemia caused by atherosclerosis should be offered platelet antiaggregation with either low dose aspirin or clopidogrel. Combined treatment with aspirin and low-dose of the direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) rivaroxaban should be considered and weighed against bleeding risk in symptomatic PAD patients considered at high risk for recurrent ischaemic events and in patients having undergone endovascular or open surgical intervention for PAD. Patiens with cardiogenic embolization to lower extremity arteries should be recommended anticoagulant treatment with either one of the DOACs (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban) or warfarin.

scholarly journals P6: ANTIPLATELET AND ANTICOAGULANT USE IN RANDOMISED TRIALS OF PATIENTS UNDERGOING ENDOVASCULAR INTERVENTION FOR PERIPHERAL ARTERIAL DISEASE: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
MI Qureshi ◽  
HL Li ◽  
GK Ambler ◽  
KHF Wong ◽  
S Dawson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Peripheral Arterial Disease ◽  
Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Dual Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Arterial Intervention ◽  
Arterial Disease ◽  
Endovascular Intervention ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Peripheral Arterial ◽  
High Level

Abstract Introduction Guideline recommendations for antithrombotic (antiplatelet and anticoagulant) therapy during and after endovascular intervention are patchy and conflicted, in part due to a lack of evidence. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the antithrombotic specifications in randomised trials for peripheral arterial endovascular intervention. Method This review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Randomised trials including participants with peripheral arterial disease undergoing endovascular arterial intervention were included. Trial methods were assessed to determine whether an antithrombotic protocol had been specified, its completeness, and the agent(s) prescribed. Antithrombotic protocols were classed as periprocedural (preceding/during intervention), immediate postprocedural (up to 14 days following intervention) and maintenance postprocedural (therapy continuing beyond 14 days). Trials were stratified according to type of intervention. Result Ninety-four trials were included. Only 29% of trials had complete periprocedural antithrombotic protocols, and 34% had complete post-procedural protocols. In total, 64 different periprocedural protocols, and 51 separate postprocedural protocols were specified. Antiplatelet monotherapy and unfractionated heparin were the most common choices of regimen in the periprocedural setting, and dual antiplatelet therapy (55%) was most commonly utilised postprocedure. There is an increasing tendency to use dual antiplatelet therapy with time or for drug-coated technologies. Conclusion Randomised trials comparing different types of peripheral endovascular arterial intervention have a high level of heterogeneity in their antithrombotic regimens, and there has been an increasing tendency to use dual antiplatelet therapy over time. Antiplatelet regimes need to be standardised in trials comparing endovascular technologies. Take-home message To determine the benefits of any endovascular intervention within a randomised trial, antithrombotic regimens should be standardised to prevent confounding. This systematic review demonstrates a high level of heterogeneity of antithrombotic prescribing in randomised trials of endovascular intervention, and an increasing tendency to utilise dual antiplatelet therapy, despite a lack of evidence of benefit, but an increased risk of harm.

scholarly journals Extremely elevated lipoprotein (a) as an independent risk factor for peripheral arterial disease in large patient cohort

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
M.R Poudel ◽  
S Kirana ◽  
D Stoyanova ◽  
K.P Mellwig ◽  
D Hinse ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peripheral Arterial Disease ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Arterial Disease ◽  
P Value ◽  
Lipoprotein A ◽  
Large Patient ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Revascularization Therapy ◽  
Peripheral Arterial

Abstract Background Elevated lipoprotein (a) [LP (a)] levels are an independent, genetic, and causal factor for cardiovascular disease and associated with myocardial infarction (MI). Although the association between circulating levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) is well established, its role in risk of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) remains unclear. PAD affects over 236 million individuals and follows ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and cerebrovascular disease (CVD) as the third leading cause of atherosclerotic cardiovascular morbidity worldwide. LP (a) is genetically determined, stable throughout life and yet refractory to drug therapy. While 30 mg/dl is considered the upper normal value for LP (a) in central Europe, extremely high LP (a) levels (&gt;150mg/dl) are rare in the general population. The aim of our study was to analyse the correlation between lipoprotein (a) [LP (a)] levels and an incidence of PAD in high-risk patients. Patients and methods We reviewed the LP (a) concentrations of 52.898 consecutive patients admitted to our cardiovascular center between January 2004 and December 2014. Of these, 579 patients had LP (a) levels above 150 mg/dl (mean 181.45±33.1mg/dl). In the control collective LP (a) was &lt;30mg/dl (n=350). Other atherogenic risk factors in this group were HbA1c 6.58±1.65%, low density lipoprotein (LDL) 141.99±43.76 mg/dl, and body mass index 27.81±5.61. 54.40% were male, 26.07% were smokers, 93.2% had hypertension, and 24% had a family history of cardiovascular diseases. More than 82.6% were under statins. The mean glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was 69.13±24.8 ml/min [MDRD (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease)]. Results 45.00% (n=261) of the patients with LP (a) &gt;150mg/dl had PAD. The prevalence of PAD in patients with LP (a) &lt;30mg/dl in our control collective was 15.8%. (P- Value 0.001). Patients with LP (a) &gt;150mg/dl had a significantly increased risk for PAD (Odds ratio 4.36, 95% CI 2.94–6.72, p: 0.001). 19.1% of patients were re-vascularized by percutaneous angioplasty (PTA) and 7.09% of patients had to undergo peripheral vascular bypass (PVB). Mean LP (a) level in patients with PAD was 182.6±31.61. Conclusion Elevated LP (a) levels above 150 mg/dl are associated with a significantly increased risk of PAD in our collective and it confirms our hypothesis. Over one fourth of these patients had severe PAD and requiring revascularization therapy. We need more prospective studies to confirm our findings. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document