Background: Intermittent claudication is pain in the legs due to muscle ischaemia associated with arterial stenosis or occlusion. Angioplasty is a technique that involves dilatation and recanalisation of a stenosed or occluded artery.
Objectives: The objective of this review was to determine the effects of angioplasty of arteries in the leg when compared with non surgical therapy, or no therapy, for people with mild to moderate intermittent claudication.
Search methods: Sources searched include the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group's Specialized Trials Register (August 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 3, 2006) and reference lists of relevant articles. The review authors also contacted investigators in the field and handsearched relevant conference proceedings (August 2006).
Selection criteria: Randomised trials of angioplasty for mild or moderate intermittent claudication.
Data collection and analysis: The contact author selected suitable trials and this was checked by the other review author. Both review authors assessed trial quality independently. The contact author extracted data and this was cross checked by the other review author.
Main results: Two trials with a total of 98 participants were included. The average age was 62 years old with 20 women and 78 men. Participants were followed for two years in one trial and six years in the other.At six months follow up, mean ankle brachial pressure indices were higher in the angioplasty groups than control groups (mean difference 0.17; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.24). In one trial, walking distances were greater in the angioplasty group, but in the other trial, in which controls underwent an exercise programme, walking distances did not show a greater improvement in the angioplasty group. At two years follow up in one trial, the angioplasty group were more likely to have a patent artery (odds ratio 5.5; 95% CI 1.8 to 17.0) but not a significantly better walking distance or quality of life. In the other trial, long term follow up at six years demonstrated no significant differences in outcome between the angioplasty and control groups.
Authors' conclusions: These limited results suggest that angioplasty may have had a short term benefit, but this may not have been sustained.