Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze if there is any relation between functional capacity assessed by subjective and objective methods regarding the current state and after clinical treatment in patients with intermittent claudication. METHODS: A total of 500 patients with intermittent claudication were enrolled. All patients underwent clinical examination and a functional evaluation by subjective (clinical visit) and objective method (treadmill test). Additionally, 50 patients were selected to evaluate the effect of clinical treatment by subjective and objective methods in relation to functional capacity. RESULTS: Out of 500 patients, only 60 (12.0%) had similar results in both methods. The remaining, that is 440 patients (88.0%) had subject values in disagreement with stress test findings. Regarding the clinical effect of the treatment on the functional outcomes, results were similar in both methods (χ²=1.7; p=0.427). CONCLUSION: Although the subjective method overestimates the functional capacity when compared to the objective method, no significant differences were observed between both methods when analyzing the effect of clinical treatment. Thus, the subjective method provides similar information as compared with objective method, in monitoring the clinical treatment of patients with intermittent claudication.