PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11341869

Critical Limb Ischemia.

Abstract

Patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) present with ischemic rest pain or with tissue loss. Tissue loss, in its mildest presentation, includes focal ischemic ulceration or nonhealing wounds. Gangrene is the manifestation of severe chronic ischemia. Without revascularization, patients with CLI are at risk for limb loss and for potentially fatal complications from the progression of gangrene and the development of sepsis. The best patient outcomes are achieved when the diagnosis and appropriate treatment for CLI are not delayed. Simple noninvasive tests, such as measurement of ankle-to-brachial indices or toe Doppler pressures, take only minutes to provide sufficient information to confirm the diagnosis of peripheral artery disease (PAD) and to document the severity of limb ischemia. Subsequent diagnostic imaging studies, such as arteriography, magnetic resonance angiography, or ultrasound duplex scanning, provide the detailed information needed to plan revascularization therapy. Balloon angioplasty and stenting work best for focal segments of narrowing or short occlusions of the iliac arteries, but endovascular treatments yield progressively poorer results with longer and more distal lesions. Long segments of occlusion, especially those distal to the common femoral artery, are best treated with surgical bypass. Pharmacotherapy and adjunctive therapies, such as topical therapies or hyperbaric oxygen treatment, may have a limited role in patients in whom revascularization procedures have failed or for those in whom revascularization is not technically possible--particularly when amputation is the only alternative. Prostanoids are the best-studied class of drugs for such applications, but their use is still investigational in the United States. Though other medical approaches, such as use of other vasoactive agents, drugs that treat claudication, or gene-induced angiogenesis may prove useful, they do not yet have demonstrated roles in the treatment of patients with CLI.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

David L. Dawson, Ryan T. Hagino. 2001. Critical Limb Ischemia.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11936-001-0042-5

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗