Walking performance and health-related quality of life after surgical or endovascular invasive versus non-invasive treatment for intermittent claudication--a prospective randomised trial.

Abstract

Despite limited scientific evidence for the effectiveness of invasive treatment for intermittent claudication (IC), revascularisation procedures for IC are increasingly often performed in Sweden. This randomised controlled trial compares the outcome after 2 years of primary invasive (INV) versus primary non-invasive (NON) treatment strategies in unselected IC patients. Based on arterial duplex and clinical examination, IC patients were randomised to INV (endovascular and/or surgical, n = 100) or NON (n = 101). NON patients could request invasive treatment if they deteriorated during follow-up. Primary outcome was maximal walking performance (MWP) on graded treadmill test at 2 years and secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life (HRQL), assessed with Short Form (36) Health Survey (SF-36). MWP was not significantly (p = 0.104) improved in the INV versus the NON group. Two SF-36 physical subscales, Bodily Pain (p < 0.01) and Role Physical (p < 0.05) improved significantly more in the INV versus the NON group. There were 7% crossovers against the study protocol in the INV group. Although invasive treatment did not show any significant advantage regarding MWP, the HRQL improvements associated with invasive treatment tentatively suggest secondary benefits of this regimen. On the other hand, a primary non-invasive treatment strategy seems to be accepted by most IC patients.