No abstract

Background— Patients with peripheral arterial disease often undergo peripheral endovascular revascularization (PER) to alleviate symptoms. Despite the growth of PER, little information exists quantifying the health status benefits after the procedure. Methods and Results— From February 2001 to August 2004, 477 consecutive patients underwent PER for symptomatic peripheral arterial disease. Of these, 300 consented to participate in a longitudinal follow-up study of their health status. Health status was quantified with the disease-specific Peripheral Artery Questionnaire and the generic Short Form-12 and the EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ5D)questionnaire. Scores range from 0 to 100; higher scores represent fewer symptoms and better health status. The average age of the cohort was 68±11 years (mean±SD); 186 (62%) were male, 288 (96%) were white, and 118 (39%) were diabetic. Clinical follow-up was attained in 99% of patients; health status assessments were made in 86%. Mean Peripheral Artery Questionnaire summary scores improved significantly after revascularization from 31±19 to 62±27 at 1 year ( P <0.0001). Generic health status scores also improved significantly ( P <0.001 for all). Despite a technically successful procedure in 98% of patients, 21% of patients did not achieve the minimal clinically important improvement of an 8-point change in Peripheral Artery Questionnaire Summary score after PER (35±19 at baseline versus 31±16 at 1 year; P =0.09). Conclusions— For most patients, significant and sustained improvements in symptoms, functioning, and quality of life occur after PER. Identifying and counseling patients less likely to benefit from PER is an important future research direction.

BackgroundWarfarin, the most commonly used antithrombotic agent for stroke prophylaxis in atrial fibrillation (AF), requires regular monitoring, frequent dosage adjustments, and dietary restrictions. Clinicians’ perceptions of barriers to optimal AF management are an important factor in treatment. Anticoagulation management for AF is overseen by both cardiology and internal medicine (IM) practices. Thus, gaining the perspective of specialists and generalists is essential in understanding barriers to treatment. We used qualitative research methods to define key issues in the prescription of warfarin therapy for AF by cardiology specialists and IM physicians.Methods and resultsClinicians were interviewed to identify barriers to warfarin treatment in a large Midwestern city. Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation occurred. Content analysis yielded several themes. The most salient theme that emerged from clinician interviews was use of characteristics other than the patient’s CHADS2 score to enact a treatment plan, such as the patient’s social situation and past medication-taking behavior. Other themes included patient knowledge, real-world problems, breakdown in communication, and clinician reluctance.ConclusionWarfarin treatment is associated with many challenges. The barriers identified by clinicians highlight the unmet need associated with stroke prophylaxis in AF and the opportunity to improve anticoagulation treatment in AF. Social and lifestyle factors were important considerations in determining treatment.

No abstract

No abstract