静脉回流辅助装置治疗间歇性跛行:一项使用假比较器的随机对照试验

François Caron, A. Garg, E. Kaplovitch, N. Aleksova, Barbara Nowacki, R. deSouza, B. Neupane, Jeffrey S. Ginsberg, J. Hirsh, J. Eikelboom, Sonia S An
{"title":"静脉回流辅助装置治疗间歇性跛行:一项使用假比较器的随机对照试验","authors":"François Caron, A. Garg, E. Kaplovitch, N. Aleksova, Barbara Nowacki, R. deSouza, B. Neupane, Jeffrey S. Ginsberg, J. Hirsh, J. Eikelboom, Sonia S An","doi":"10.35248/2329-6925.19.7.383","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: To determine whether an intermittent mechanical compression device (Venowave) effects walking distance in patients with intermittent claudication as compared to placebo, as well as to review the published literature on the topic. Design: Randomized, cross-over, blinded trial of an intermittent mechanical compression device (Venowave), compared with a sham compression device. Setting: Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Canada. Participants: 27 patients with severe peripheral limb ischemia, as identified by at least one of: i) ABI<0.4; ii) ACD<200 m (Fontaine stage IIb); iii) toe-brachial index<0.5; or iv) toe pressure<40 mmHg or rest pain due to arterial ischemia. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was Absolute Claudication Distance (ACD) while walking on a treadmill. Secondary outcome measures included Initial Claudication Distance (ICD), walk time measured in minutes, and a modified version of the Walking Impairment Questionnaire (WIQ). Results: There was no significant difference in ACD (mean difference: 14.1 m; 95% CI: -31.6 m-59.9 m; p=0.53) or ICD (mean difference: 5.9 m; 95% CI: -26.3 m-14.5 m; p=0.55) between active and sham devices. Mean walk time was identical between active and sham devices (5.6 minutes (2.1) vs. 5.6 minutes (2.0); p=0.99). The modified WIQ score was higher in the active group compared with the sham group (mean difference 2.1 m; 95% CI: 0.3 m-3.9 m; p=0.03). Conclusion: In patients with moderate to severe intermittent claudication, the Venowave device did not increase walking distance when used immediately prior to and during measured effort. This is the first study to use a sham device as a comparator in this specific context.","PeriodicalId":17397,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Vascular Medicine & Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Venous Return Assist Devices for Intermittent Claudication: A Randomized Controlled Trial Utilizing a Sham Comparator\",\"authors\":\"François Caron, A. Garg, E. Kaplovitch, N. Aleksova, Barbara Nowacki, R. deSouza, B. Neupane, Jeffrey S. Ginsberg, J. Hirsh, J. Eikelboom, Sonia S An\",\"doi\":\"10.35248/2329-6925.19.7.383\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives: To determine whether an intermittent mechanical compression device (Venowave) effects walking distance in patients with intermittent claudication as compared to placebo, as well as to review the published literature on the topic. Design: Randomized, cross-over, blinded trial of an intermittent mechanical compression device (Venowave), compared with a sham compression device. Setting: Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Canada. Participants: 27 patients with severe peripheral limb ischemia, as identified by at least one of: i) ABI<0.4; ii) ACD<200 m (Fontaine stage IIb); iii) toe-brachial index<0.5; or iv) toe pressure<40 mmHg or rest pain due to arterial ischemia. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was Absolute Claudication Distance (ACD) while walking on a treadmill. Secondary outcome measures included Initial Claudication Distance (ICD), walk time measured in minutes, and a modified version of the Walking Impairment Questionnaire (WIQ). Results: There was no significant difference in ACD (mean difference: 14.1 m; 95% CI: -31.6 m-59.9 m; p=0.53) or ICD (mean difference: 5.9 m; 95% CI: -26.3 m-14.5 m; p=0.55) between active and sham devices. Mean walk time was identical between active and sham devices (5.6 minutes (2.1) vs. 5.6 minutes (2.0); p=0.99). The modified WIQ score was higher in the active group compared with the sham group (mean difference 2.1 m; 95% CI: 0.3 m-3.9 m; p=0.03). Conclusion: In patients with moderate to severe intermittent claudication, the Venowave device did not increase walking distance when used immediately prior to and during measured effort. This is the first study to use a sham device as a comparator in this specific context.\",\"PeriodicalId\":17397,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Vascular Medicine & Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Vascular Medicine & Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.35248/2329-6925.19.7.383\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Vascular Medicine & Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35248/2329-6925.19.7.383","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:确定与安慰剂相比,间歇性机械压迫装置(Venowave)是否会影响间歇性跛行患者的步行距离,并回顾有关该主题的已发表文献。设计:随机、交叉、盲法试验间歇式机械压缩装置(Venowave)与假压缩装置的比较。单位:汉密尔顿健康科学,汉密尔顿,加拿大。受试者:27例严重外周肢体缺血患者,至少符合以下条件之一:i) ABI<0.4;ii) ACD<200 m (Fontaine stage IIb);Iii)趾臂指数<0.5;或iv)脚趾压< 40mmhg或因动脉缺血引起的休息疼痛。主要结局指标:主要结局指标是在跑步机上行走时的绝对跛行距离(ACD)。次要结果测量包括初始跛行距离(ICD)、步行时间(以分钟为单位)和修改后的步行障碍问卷(WIQ)。结果:两组患者ACD差异无统计学意义(平均差14.1 m;95% CI: -31.6 m-59.9 m;p=0.53)或ICD(平均差值:5.9 m;95% CI: -26.3 m-14.5 m;P =0.55)。活动装置和假装置的平均步行时间相同(5.6分钟(2.1)vs. 5.6分钟(2.0);p = 0.99)。治疗组改良WIQ评分高于假手术组(平均差2.1 m;95% CI: 0.3 m-3.9 m;p = 0.03)。结论:在中度至重度间歇性跛行患者中,Venowave装置在测量努力之前和期间立即使用时不会增加步行距离。这是第一个在这种特殊情况下使用假器械作为比较物的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Venous Return Assist Devices for Intermittent Claudication: A Randomized Controlled Trial Utilizing a Sham Comparator
Objectives: To determine whether an intermittent mechanical compression device (Venowave) effects walking distance in patients with intermittent claudication as compared to placebo, as well as to review the published literature on the topic. Design: Randomized, cross-over, blinded trial of an intermittent mechanical compression device (Venowave), compared with a sham compression device. Setting: Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Canada. Participants: 27 patients with severe peripheral limb ischemia, as identified by at least one of: i) ABI<0.4; ii) ACD<200 m (Fontaine stage IIb); iii) toe-brachial index<0.5; or iv) toe pressure<40 mmHg or rest pain due to arterial ischemia. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was Absolute Claudication Distance (ACD) while walking on a treadmill. Secondary outcome measures included Initial Claudication Distance (ICD), walk time measured in minutes, and a modified version of the Walking Impairment Questionnaire (WIQ). Results: There was no significant difference in ACD (mean difference: 14.1 m; 95% CI: -31.6 m-59.9 m; p=0.53) or ICD (mean difference: 5.9 m; 95% CI: -26.3 m-14.5 m; p=0.55) between active and sham devices. Mean walk time was identical between active and sham devices (5.6 minutes (2.1) vs. 5.6 minutes (2.0); p=0.99). The modified WIQ score was higher in the active group compared with the sham group (mean difference 2.1 m; 95% CI: 0.3 m-3.9 m; p=0.03). Conclusion: In patients with moderate to severe intermittent claudication, the Venowave device did not increase walking distance when used immediately prior to and during measured effort. This is the first study to use a sham device as a comparator in this specific context.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信