Related Experiment Videos
Claudication distance is poorly estimated and inappropriately measured
C J Watson1, D Phillips, L Hands
1University of Oxford, Nuffield Department of Surgery, John Radcliffe Hospital, UK.
The British Journal of Surgery
|August 1, 1997
Summary
Patient-reported claudication distance is unreliable for assessing disability in peripheral arterial disease. Objective walking tests are needed for accurate handicap evaluation and treatment decisions.
Area of Science:
- Vascular Surgery
- Clinical Assessment
- Patient Outcomes
Background:
- Claudication distance is the primary metric for lower-limb occlusive arterial disease disability.
- The accuracy of claudication distance as a surrogate for patient handicap requires evaluation.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the accuracy of patient-estimated claudication distance.
- To compare patient-reported distances with objective walking test results.
Main Methods:
- Prospective study of 70 patients with intermittent claudication at a vascular clinic.
- Patients estimated claudication and maximum walking distances.
- Objective measurements via patient-controlled corridor and fixed-speed treadmill walks.
Main Results:
- Patient-reported claudication distance showed poor correlation with medical records.
- No correlation found between estimated and objectively measured walking distances.
- Patients walked further at self-selected speeds (corridor) than at slower, fixed speeds (treadmill).
Conclusions:
- Claudication distance is inaccurately estimated, reported, and measured, limiting its clinical value.
- Current methods of assessing claudication distance are unreliable for treatment decisions.
- Objective handicap assessment is crucial for rational management of peripheral arterial disease.