Abstract
ObjectiveWe investigated the effects of lower extremity intermittent negative pressure (INP) treatment for 1 hour two times daily for 12 weeks on the walking distance of patients with intermittent claudication (IC). MethodsPatients with IC were randomized to treatment with −40 mm Hg INP (treatment group) or −10 mm Hg INP (sham control group). Pain-free walking distance (PWD) and maximal walking distance (MWD) on a treadmill, resting and postexercise ankle-brachial index, resting and postischemic blood flow (plethysmography), and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L and Vascuqol-6) were measured at baseline and after 12 weeks of treatment. ResultsA total of 72 patients were randomized, and 63 had data available for the intention-to-treat analyses. The between-group comparisons showed a significant change in the PWD, favoring the treatment group over the sham control group (estimated treatment effect, 50 m; 95% confidence interval [CI], 11-89; P = .014). The PWD had increased by 68 m (P < .001) in the treatment group and 18 m (P = .064) in the sham control group. No significant difference was found in the change in the MWD between the two groups (estimated treatment effect, 42 m; 95% CI, −14 to 97; P = .139). The MWD had increased by 62 m (P = .006) in the treatment group and 20 m (P = .265) in the sham control group. For patients with a baseline PWD of <200 m (n = 56), significant changes had occurred in both PWD and MWD between the two groups, favoring the treatment group (estimated treatment effect, 42 m; 95% CI, 2-83; P = .042; and estimated treatment effect, 62 m; 95% CI, 5-118; P = .032; respectively). Both overall and for the group of patients with a PWD <200 m, no significant differences were found in the changes in the resting and postexercise ankle-brachial index, resting and postischemic blood flow, or quality of life parameters between the two groups. ConclusionsTreatment with −40 mm Hg INP increased the PWD compared with sham treatment in patients with IC. For the patients with a baseline PWD of <200 m, an increase was found in both PWD and MWD compared with sham treatment.
Highlights
A total of 72 patients were randomized, and 63 had data available for the intention-to-treat analyses
A significantly higher prevalence of diabetes was present in the treatment group compared with the sham control group (P 1⁄4 .008)
No significant differences were found between the two groups for all other demographic variables (Table I)
Summary
A total of 72 patients were randomized, and 63 had data available for the intention-to-treat analyses. The between-group comparisons showed a significant change in the PWD, favoring the treatment group over the sham control group (estimated treatment effect, 50 m; 95% confidence interval [CI], 11-89; P 1⁄4 .014). For patients with a baseline PWD of
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
