Aim: To evaluate the clinical relevance of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) in patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD). Data sources: EMBASE and MEDLINE databases were searched from inception to March 2020 for clinical studies reporting on the association between of aPL [IgG/IgM anticardiolipin (aCL) and lupus anticoagulant (LA)] and PAD. Methods: We determined the pooled prevalence (PP) of patients positive for aPL in PAD or the PP of PAD in patients positive for aPL; we employed Peto's odds ratio with random effect for the meta-analysis. Results: Twenty-one studies comprising 6,057 patients were evaluated: in patients with PAD, the PP of IgG aCL was 12% vs 4.1% in those without, IgM aCL was 13.2% vs 2.1%, and LA 13.3% vs 3.3%, respectively. The PP of patients with LA was greater in critical limb ischemia than in the control group (19.3% vs 4.2%). Also, the PP of patients with LA was greater in the failed than in the successful revascularisation group (35.8% vs 15.8%). The PP of post-procedural revascularisation failures was similar in the groups given or not given oral anticoagulation (59.2% vs 61.9%). Conclusion: All the aPL related to PAD regardless of diagnostic definition used, whereas LA related also to critical limb ischaemia and failed revascularisation. Data expressed as percentage of participants positive for aPL limit the interpretation of these relationships. © 2020 Elsevier Inc.
Antiphospholipid antibodies and lower extremity peripheral artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Arcaro, A.;Gentile, F.Penultimo
;
2020-01-01
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate the clinical relevance of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) in patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD). Data sources: EMBASE and MEDLINE databases were searched from inception to March 2020 for clinical studies reporting on the association between of aPL [IgG/IgM anticardiolipin (aCL) and lupus anticoagulant (LA)] and PAD. Methods: We determined the pooled prevalence (PP) of patients positive for aPL in PAD or the PP of PAD in patients positive for aPL; we employed Peto's odds ratio with random effect for the meta-analysis. Results: Twenty-one studies comprising 6,057 patients were evaluated: in patients with PAD, the PP of IgG aCL was 12% vs 4.1% in those without, IgM aCL was 13.2% vs 2.1%, and LA 13.3% vs 3.3%, respectively. The PP of patients with LA was greater in critical limb ischemia than in the control group (19.3% vs 4.2%). Also, the PP of patients with LA was greater in the failed than in the successful revascularisation group (35.8% vs 15.8%). The PP of post-procedural revascularisation failures was similar in the groups given or not given oral anticoagulation (59.2% vs 61.9%). Conclusion: All the aPL related to PAD regardless of diagnostic definition used, whereas LA related also to critical limb ischaemia and failed revascularisation. Data expressed as percentage of participants positive for aPL limit the interpretation of these relationships. © 2020 Elsevier Inc.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
