Presentations of major peripheral arterial disease and risk of major outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: results from the ADVANCE-ON study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is known to be associated with high cardiovascular risk, but the individual impact of PAD presentations on risk of macrovascular and microvascular events has not been reliably compared in patients with type 2 diabetes. We aimed to evaluate the impact of major PAD, and its different presentations, on the 10-year risk of death, major macrovascular events, and major clinical microvascular events in these patients. METHODS: Participants in the action in diabetes and vascular disease: PreterAx and DiamicroN modified-release controlled evaluation (ADVANCE) trial and the ADVANCE-ON post-trial study were followed for a median of 5.0 (in-trial), 5.4 (post-trial), and 9.9 (overall) years. Major PAD at baseline was subdivided into lower-extremity chronic ulceration or amputation secondary to vascular disease and history of peripheral revascularization by angioplasty or surgery. RESULTS: Among 11,140 participants, 516 (4.6 %) had major PAD at baseline: 300 (2.7 %) had lower-extremity ulceration or amputation alone, 190 (1.7 %) had peripheral revascularization alone, and 26 (0.2 %) had both presentations. All-cause mortality, major macrovascular events, and major clinical microvascular events occurred in 2265 (20.3 %), 2166 (19.4 %), and 807 (7.2 %) participants, respectively. Compared to those without PAD, patients with major PAD had increased rates of all-cause mortality (HR 1.35, 95 % CI 1.15-1.60, p = 0.0004), and major macrovascular events (1.47 [1.23-1.75], p < 0.0001), after multiple adjustments for region of origin, cardiovascular risk factors and treatments, peripheral neuropathy markers, and randomized treatments. We have also observed a trend toward an association of baseline PAD with risk of major clinical microvascular events [1.31 (0.96-1.78), p = 0.09]. These associations were comparable for patients with a lower-extremity ulceration or amputation and for those with a history of peripheral revascularization. Furthermore, the risk of retinal photocoagulation or blindness, but not renal events, increased in patients with lower-extremity ulceration or amputation [1.53 (1.01-2.30), p = 0.04]. CONCLUSIONS: Lower-extremity ulceration or amputation, and peripheral revascularization both increased the risks of death and cardiovascular events, but only lower-extremity ulceration or amputation increased the risk of severe retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes. Screening for major PAD and its management remain crucial for cardiovascular prevention in patients with type 2 diabetes (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00949286).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".