Extracorporeal shockwave therapy for intermittent claudication: Medium-term outcomes from a double-blind randomised placebo-controlled pilot trial

Extracorporeal Shockwave for Intermittent Claudication and Quality of Life: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Intermittent lower limb claudication limits function and quality of life. Supervised exercise programs are not readily available, and a noninvasive alternative is needed.

Objective

To assess extracorporeal corporeal shockwave therapy in improving quality of life in patients with claudication.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial, patients in the outpatient setting at a single tertiary center for vascular surgery were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to extracorporeal shockwave therapy or placebo therapy with no shockwaves delivered. Recruitment was between June 2015 and January 2020, with 12-week follow-up ending in March 2020. A convenience sample of patients with claudication and conservative treatment requirements who refused or were unable to participate in supervised exercise were eligible. Patients receiving anticoagulation therapy or with an active cancer were excluded. Of 522 patients screened, 389 were eligible, 138 were enrolled, and 110 completed follow-up and were included in the primary analysis. Statistical analysis was completed by May 2021.

Intervention

In the intervention group, patients received 100 impulses of 0.1mJ/mm/cm2 in an area of the gastrocnemius muscle 3 times weekly for 3 weeks. The steps for treatment were replicated for the control group without delivering the treatment.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the Physical Functioning domain of the 36-item Short-Form Quality of Life Questionnaire at 12-week follow-up. Secondary outcomes included walking distances, ankle brachial pressure index, and other quality-of-life measures.

Results

Of 138 patients recruited and randomized, 92 (67%) were male, and the mean (SD) age of the study population was 67 (9.6) years. The intervention group had a significantly higher physical function score at 12 weeks (estimated median difference 3.8; 95% CI, 0.0-7.7; P = .03). However, this significance did not remain when adjusting for covariates. At 12 weeks, the intervention group had significantly longer pain-free and maximum walking distances (pain-free estimated median difference, 34.1, 95% CI, 11.4-56.8; P = .004; maximum estimated median difference, 51.4; 95% CI, 10.7-86.5; P = .01).

Conclusions and Relevance

To our knowledge, this is the first double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial to consider extracorporeal shockwave therapy for the management of intermittent claudication. It demonstrated efficacy for walking distances, may have a positive effect on quality of life, and may provide a safe, noninvasive alternative therapy for patients with intermittent claudication.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02652078.

International Systematic Review of Utility Values Associated with Cardiovascular Disease and Reflections on Selecting Evidence for a UK Decision-Analytic Model

PURPOSE

Evaluating interventions for cardiovascular disease (CVD) requires estimates of its effect on utility. We aimed to 1) systematically review utility estimates for CVDs published since 2013 and 2) critically appraise UK-relevant estimates and calculate corresponding baseline utility multipliers.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and Embase (April 22, 2021) using CVD and utility terms. We screened results for primary studies reporting utility distributions for people with experience of heart failure, myocardial infarction, peripheral arterial disease, stable angina, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or unstable angina. We extracted characteristics from studies included. For UK estimates based on the EuroQoL 5-dimension (EQ-5D) measure, we assessed risk of bias and applicability to a decision-analytic model, pooled arms/time points as appropriate, and estimated baseline utility multipliers using predicted utility for age- and sex- matched populations without CVD. We sought utility sources from directly applicable studies with low risk of bias, prioritizing plausibility of severity ordering in our base-case model and highest population ascertainment in a sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

Most of the 403 studies identified used EQ-5D (n = 217) and most assessed Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development populations (n = 262), although measures and countries varied widely. UK studies using EQ-5D (n = 29) produced very heterogeneous baseline utility multipliers for each type of CVD, precluding meta-analysis and implying different possible severity orderings. We could find sources that provided a plausible ordering of utilities while adequately representing health states.

CONCLUSIONS

We cataloged international CVD utility estimates and calculated UK-relevant baseline utility multipliers. Modelers should consider unreported sources of heterogeneity, such as population differences, when selecting utility evidence from reviews.

HIGHLIGHTS

Published systematic reviews have summarized estimates of utility associated with cardiovascular disease published up to 2013.We 1) reviewed utility estimates for 7 types of cardiovascular disease published since 2013, 2) critically appraised UK-relevant studies, and 3) estimated the effect of each cardiovascular disease on baseline utility.Our review 1) recommends a consistent and reliable set of baseline utility multipliers for 7 types of cardiovascular disease and 2) provides systematically identified reference information for researchers seeking utility evidence for their own context.

A randomized controlled trial: comparing extracorporeal shock wave therapy versus local corticosteroid injection for the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome

PURPOSE

Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) has been reported as a new therapy for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). However, few studies have compared ESWT with the local corticosteroid injection (LCI).

METHODS

In this study, a randomized controlled trial comparing 30 patients with ESWT and 25 patients treated with LCI was conducted. The clinical outcomes were obtained with tests including the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and paresthesia, the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BQ), and a nerve conduction study, before the study started and at three, nine, and 12 weeks after the start of the treatment.

RESULTS

Significantly greater improvement in the VAS and BQ scores was noted for the ESWT group than for the LCI group (P < 0.05). For the nerve conduction study, there was a significant improvement in the median nerve sensory nerve action potential distal latency at the nine and 12-week follow-ups for the ESWT group.

CONCLUSIONS

ESWT is a useful noninvasive short-term treatment for mild to moderate carpal tunnel syndrome and elicits a better recovery than LCI does, but more research is needed to test the clinical outcomes of ESWT.