OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether use of an alternative ankle-brachial index (ABI) calculation method improves mortality risk prediction compared with traditional methods. BACKGROUND: The ABI is used to diagnose peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and to identify those at risk for cardiovascular events. Traditionally, the ABI is calculated with the higher of the dorsalis pedis and posterior tibial ankle arteries. Studies directly comparing calculation methods are limited. METHODS: The ABI was calculated at baseline in 1,413 study participants undergoing non-emergent coronary angiography subsequently followed for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. There were 224 individuals assigned to the traditional-PAD group (ABI <0.90) with the traditional ABI method. Of those remaining, an alternative ABI method using the lower of the 2 ankle pressures assigned 282 patients to the alternative-PAD group. The 862 individuals not assigned to PAD by either method were the no-PAD group. RESULTS: There were 163 mortalities during a median follow-up of 5.0 years. Adjusted Cox regression models showed that the alternative-PAD group had an increased risk for all-cause (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.49; 95% confidence interval: 1.01 to 2.19) and cardiovascular mortality (HR: 3.21; 95% confidence interval: 1.53 to 6.37) versus the no-PAD group. Additionally, in the no-PAD group, there was an 11% (HR: 1.11; 95% confidence interval: 1.05 to 1.17) increased risk of all-cause mortality/1-mm Hg increased difference between the left and right brachial systolic pressures. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of an alternative ABI method and use of the brachial difference identifies individuals at an increased risk for mortality who are currently missed with traditional ABI methods. Current ABI protocols might need to be evaluated.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether use of an alternative ankle-brachial index (ABI) calculation method improves mortality risk prediction compared with traditional methods. BACKGROUND: The ABI is used to diagnose peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and to identify those at risk for cardiovascular events. Traditionally, the ABI is calculated with the higher of the dorsalis pedis and posterior tibial ankle arteries. Studies directly comparing calculation methods are limited. METHODS: The ABI was calculated at baseline in 1,413 study participants undergoing non-emergent coronary angiography subsequently followed for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. There were 224 individuals assigned to the traditional-PAD group (ABI <0.90) with the traditional ABI method. Of those remaining, an alternative ABI method using the lower of the 2 ankle pressures assigned 282 patients to the alternative-PAD group. The 862 individuals not assigned to PAD by either method were the no-PAD group. RESULTS: There were 163 mortalities during a median follow-up of 5.0 years. Adjusted Cox regression models showed that the alternative-PAD group had an increased risk for all-cause (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.49; 95% confidence interval: 1.01 to 2.19) and cardiovascular mortality (HR: 3.21; 95% confidence interval: 1.53 to 6.37) versus the no-PAD group. Additionally, in the no-PAD group, there was an 11% (HR: 1.11; 95% confidence interval: 1.05 to 1.17) increased risk of all-cause mortality/1-mm Hg increased difference between the left and right brachial systolic pressures. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of an alternative ABI method and use of the brachial difference identifies individuals at an increased risk for mortality who are currently missed with traditional ABI methods. Current ABI protocols might need to be evaluated.
Authors: M H Criqui; R D Langer; A Fronek; H S Feigelson; M R Klauber; T J McCann; D Browner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1992-02-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J A Ambrose; M A Tannenbaum; D Alexopoulos; C E Hjemdahl-Monsen; J Leavy; M Weiss; S Borrico; R Gorlin; V Fuster Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1988-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: A T Hirsch; M H Criqui; D Treat-Jacobson; J G Regensteiner; M A Creager; J W Olin; S H Krook; D B Hunninghake; A J Comerota; M E Walsh; M M McDermott; W R Hiatt Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-09-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Kevin T Nead; Margaret Zhou; Roxanne Diaz Caceres; Jeffrey W Olin; John P Cooke; Nicholas J Leeper Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2013-04-30
Authors: Peggy Robinet; Dianna M Milewicz; Lisa A Cassis; Nicholas J Leeper; Hong S Lu; Jonathan D Smith Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2018-01-04 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: Tanya Wilcox; Jonathan D Newman; Thomas S Maldonado; Caron Rockman; Jeffrey S Berger Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2018-04-30 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Louai Razzouk; Caron B Rockman; Manesh R Patel; Yu Guo; Mark A Adelman; Thomas S Riles; Jeffrey S Berger Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2015-06-23 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Jonathan D Newman; Caron B Rockman; Mikhail Kosiborod; Yu Guo; Hua Zhong; Howard S Weintraub; Arthur Z Schwartzbard; Mark A Adelman; Jeffrey S Berger Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2016-09-18 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Kelly P Downing; Kevin T Nead; Yoko Kojima; Themistocles Assimes; Lars Maegdefessel; Thomas Quertermous; John P Cooke; Nicholas J Leeper Journal: Vasc Med Date: 2013-12-09 Impact factor: 3.239
Authors: Jonathan T Unkart; Matthew A Allison; Maria Rosario G Araneta; Joachim H Ix; Kunihiro Matsushita; Michael H Criqui Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Elsie Gyang Ross; Nigam H Shah; Ronald L Dalman; Kevin T Nead; John P Cooke; Nicholas J Leeper Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 4.268