Observational study of the medical management of patients with peripheral artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has suggested that patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) are not offered adequate risk factor modification, despite their high cardiovascular risk. The aim of this study was to assess the cardiovascular profiles of patients with PAD and quantify the survival benefits of target-based risk factor modification. METHODS: The Vascular and Endovascular Research Network (VERN) prospectively collected cardiovascular profiles of patients with PAD from ten UK vascular centres (April to June 2018) to assess practice against UK and European goal-directed best medical therapy guidelines. Risk and benefits of risk factor control were estimated using the SMART-REACH model, a validated cardiovascular prediction tool for patients with PAD. RESULTS: Some 440 patients (mean(s.d.) age 70(11) years, 24·8 per cent women) were included in the study. Mean(s.d.) cholesterol (4·3(1·2) mmol/l) and LDL-cholesterol (2·7(1·1) mmol/l) levels were above recommended targets; 319 patients (72·5 per cent) were hypertensive and 343 (78·0 per cent) were active smokers. Only 11·1 per cent of patients were prescribed high-dose statin therapy and 39·1 per cent an antithrombotic agent. The median calculated risk of a major cardiovascular event over 10 years was 53 (i.q.r. 44-62) per cent. Controlling all modifiable cardiovascular risk factors based on UK and European guidance targets (LDL-cholesterol less than 2 mmol/l, systolic BP under 140 mmHg, smoking cessation, antiplatelet therapy) would lead to an absolute risk reduction of the median 10-year cardiovascular risk by 29 (20-38) per cent with 6·3 (4·0-9·3) cardiovascular disease-free years gained. CONCLUSION: The medical management of patients with PAD in this secondary care cohort was suboptimal. Controlling modifiable risk factors to guideline-based targets would confer significant patient benefit.

Relation between adiposity and vascular events, malignancy and mortality in patients with stable cerebrovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal adiposity is associated with various risk factors including hypertension, and is therefore particularly relevant in patients with stable cerebrovascular disease (CeVD). A U-shaped relation between body mass index (BMI, kg m-2) and cardiovascular events is often described. Whether this U-shape persists for abdominal adiposity, and consequently which reference values should guide clinical practice, is unclear. We described the relation between multiple adiposity measurements and risk of vascular events, vascular mortality, malignancy and all-cause mortality in patients with clinically stable CeVD. METHODS: During a median follow-up time of 6.8 years, 1767 patients were prospectively followed. Relations were assessed using multivariable adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. Adiposity was assessed with BMI, waist circumference (stratified by gender) and the contribution of visceral fat to total abdominal fat (VAT%) measured using ultrasound. Relations were nonlinear if the χ2-statistic of the nonlinear term was significant (P-value<0.05). Nadirs were reported for nonlinear and hazard ratios (HRs) for linear relations. RESULTS: The relations between BMI and outcomes were nonlinear with nadirs ranging between 27.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 21.9-29.3) kg m2 for vascular mortality and 28.1 (95% CI, 19.0-38.2)) kg m-2 for malignancy. The relation between waist circumference and all-cause mortality was nonlinear with a nadir of 84.0 (95% CI, 18.7-134.8) cm for females and 94.8 (95% CI, 80.3-100.1) cm for males. No nonlinearity was detected for VAT%. A 1-s.d. (9.8%) increase in VAT% was related to both vascular (HR, 1.23, 95% CI 1.00-1.51) and all-cause mortality (HR, 1.22, 95% CI 1.05-1.42). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CeVD, a BMI around 27-28 kg m-2 relates to the lowest risk of vascular events, vascular mortality, malignancy and all-cause mortality. However, increasing abdominal adiposity confers a higher risk of all-cause mortality. Thus, whereas traditional BMI cutoffs may be re-evaluated in this population, striving for low abdominal obesity should remain a goal.