INTRODUCTION: The ankle-brachial index (ABI) is a reliable screening procedure for peripheral artery disease detection. However, ABI testing is time-consuming and requires trained personnel, which may preclude its routine use in population-based surveys. Preliminary data suggest a relationship between ABI values and pulse pressure (PP) levels. AIM: To assess whether PP calculation might help to detect persons who need ABI screening in population-based studies. METHODS: All Atahualpa residents aged ≥60 years were identified during a door-to-door survey and invited to undergo ABI testing. Non-consented persons and those with ABI ≥1.4 were excluded. Using generalized linear and logistic regression models adjusted for demographics and cardiovascular risk factors, as well as receiver operator characteristics curve analysis, we evaluated the association between PP values and ABI, as well as the reliability of PP to identify candidates for ABI testing. RESULTS: Out of 239 participants (mean age 70 ± 8 years, 62 % women), 46 (19 %) had an ABI ≤0.9 and 136 (57 %) had PP >65 mmHg, with a negative relationship between them (R = -0.386, p < 0.0001). A PP >65 mmHg was associated with an ABI ≤ 0.9 in the logistic regression model (OR 3.46, 95 % CI 1.07-11.2, p = 0.038). Continuous PP levels also correlated negatively with ABI (β -0.0014, 95 % CI -0.0024 to -0.0004, p = 0.005). The sensitivity of a PP >65 mmHg to predict a low ABI was 85 %, and the specificity was 50 %. In contrast, the sensitivity of blood pressure ≥140/90 mmHg was 27 % and the specificity was 10 %. The area under the curve for the predictive value of a PP >65 mmHg was 0.673 (95 % CI 0.609-0.736), and that of a blood pressure ≥140/90 mmHg was 0.371 (95 % CI 0.30-0.443), with a significant difference between them (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: PP calculation may be a simple tool to detect candidates for ABI testing in population-based studies.
INTRODUCTION: The ankle-brachial index (ABI) is a reliable screening procedure for peripheral artery disease detection. However, ABI testing is time-consuming and requires trained personnel, which may preclude its routine use in population-based surveys. Preliminary data suggest a relationship between ABI values and pulse pressure (PP) levels. AIM: To assess whether PP calculation might help to detect persons who need ABI screening in population-based studies. METHODS: All Atahualpa residents aged ≥60 years were identified during a door-to-door survey and invited to undergo ABI testing. Non-consented persons and those with ABI ≥1.4 were excluded. Using generalized linear and logistic regression models adjusted for demographics and cardiovascular risk factors, as well as receiver operator characteristics curve analysis, we evaluated the association between PP values and ABI, as well as the reliability of PP to identify candidates for ABI testing. RESULTS: Out of 239 participants (mean age 70 ± 8 years, 62 % women), 46 (19 %) had an ABI ≤0.9 and 136 (57 %) had PP >65 mmHg, with a negative relationship between them (R = -0.386, p < 0.0001). A PP >65 mmHg was associated with an ABI ≤ 0.9 in the logistic regression model (OR 3.46, 95 % CI 1.07-11.2, p = 0.038). Continuous PP levels also correlated negatively with ABI (β -0.0014, 95 % CI -0.0024 to -0.0004, p = 0.005). The sensitivity of a PP >65 mmHg to predict a low ABI was 85 %, and the specificity was 50 %. In contrast, the sensitivity of blood pressure ≥140/90 mmHg was 27 % and the specificity was 10 %. The area under the curve for the predictive value of a PP >65 mmHg was 0.673 (95 % CI 0.609-0.736), and that of a blood pressure ≥140/90 mmHg was 0.371 (95 % CI 0.30-0.443), with a significant difference between them (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: PP calculation may be a simple tool to detect candidates for ABI testing in population-based studies.
Authors: Joanne M Murabito; Jane C Evans; Kenneth Nieto; Martin G Larson; Daniel Levy; Peter W f Wilson Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Oscar H Del Brutto; Mark J Sedler; Mauricio Zambrano; Robertino M Mera; Kelsie J Phelan; Jadry A Gruen; Elizabeth H Cusick; Carlos F Moral; Victor J Del Brutto; Pablo R Castillo; David L Brown Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2014-10-05 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Victor Aboyans; Michael H Criqui; Pierre Abraham; Matthew A Allison; Mark A Creager; Curt Diehm; F Gerry R Fowkes; William R Hiatt; Björn Jönsson; Philippe Lacroix; Benôit Marin; Mary M McDermott; Lars Norgren; Reena L Pande; Pierre-Marie Preux; H E Jelle Stoffers; Diane Treat-Jacobson Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-11-16 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: M M McDermott; P Greenland; K Liu; J M Guralnik; M H Criqui; N C Dolan; C Chan; L Celic; W H Pearce; J R Schneider; L Sharma; E Clark; D Gibson; G J Martin Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-10-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Maya J Salameh; Tatjana Rundek; Bernadette Boden-Albala; Zhezhen Jin; Elizabeth V Ratchford; Marco R Di Tullio; Shunichi Homma; Ralph L Sacco Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-06-25 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Oscar H Del Brutto; Ernesto Peñaherrera; Elio Ochoa; Milton Santamaría; Mauricio Zambrano; Victor J Del Brutto Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2013-03-19 Impact factor: 5.266
Authors: Maria Teresa B Abola; Jonathan Golledge; Tetsuro Miyata; Seung-Woon Rha; Bryan P Yan; Timothy C Dy; Marie Simonette V Ganzon; Pankaj Kumar Handa; Salim Harris; Jiang Zhisheng; Ramakrishna Pinjala; Peter Ashley Robless; Hiroyoshi Yokoi; Elaine B Alajar; April Ann Bermudez-Delos Santos; Elmer Jasper B Llanes; Gay Marjorie Obrado-Nabablit; Noemi S Pestaño; Felix Eduardo Punzalan; Bernadette Tumanan-Mendoza Journal: J Atheroscler Thromb Date: 2020-07-04 Impact factor: 4.928