| Literature DB >> 27034837 |
Janaka Weragoda1, Rohini Seneviratne2, Manuj C Weerasinghe2, S M Wijeyaratne3.
Abstract
Background. In Sri Lanka the ABPI has not been used as a screening tool to detect peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in epidemiological studies. This study was conducted to determine the best cutoff value of ABPI to detect PAD in Sri Lankan population. Methods. The ABPI measured by arterial Doppler to detect PAD was validated against colour duplex scan as the criterion using 165 individuals referred to vascular laboratory, National Hospital Sri Lanka. In all selected individuals ABPI was measured and lower limb colour duplex scan was performed. Narrowing of luminal diameter of lower limb arteries 50% or more was considered as haemodynamically significant and having PAD. The discriminative performance of the ABPI was assessed using Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curve and calculating the area under the curve (AUC). The sensitivity and specificity of different threshold levels of ABPI and the best cutoff value of ABPI to detect PAD were determined. Results. ABPI 0.89 was determined as the best cutoff value to identify individuals with PAD. At this level of ABPI high sensitivity (87%), specificity (99.1%), positive predictive value (98.9%), and negative predictive value (88.4%) were observed. Conclusion. ABPI ≤ 0.89 could be used as the best cut off value to detect PAD.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27034837 PMCID: PMC4806287 DOI: 10.1155/2016/1390475
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Vasc Med ISSN: 2090-2824
Participant characteristics by presence of PAD.
| Character | PAD ( | Non-PAD ( |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No | % | No | % | ||
| Age | |||||
| 45–54 | 17 | 17.5 | 05 | 7.4 | 0.162 |
| 55–64 | 32 | 33.0 | 24 | 35.3 | |
| 65–74 | 48 | 49.5 | 39 | 57.3 | |
| Sex | |||||
| Male | 46 | 47.4 | 41 | 60.3 | 0.103 |
| Females | 51 | 52.6 | 27 | 39.7 | |
| Highest educational level | |||||
| ≤Grade 5 | 16 | 16.5 | 12 | 17.6 | 0.824 |
| Grade 6–10 | 27 | 27.8 | 16 | 23.5 | |
| GCE O/L completed and above | 54 | 55.7 | 40 | 58.8 | |
| Monthly family income Rs | |||||
| <30,000 | 32 | 33.0 | 33 | 48.5 | 0.129 |
| 30,000–50,000 | 32 | 33.0 | 18 | 26.5 | |
| >50,000 | 33 | 34.0 | 17 | 25.0 | |
| Diabetes mellitus (yes) | 49 | 50.5 | 08 | 11.8 | <0.001 |
| Hypertension (yes) | 53 | 54.6 | 18 | 26.5 | 0.001 |
| Dyslipidemia (yes) | 54 | 55.7 | 15 | 22.1 | <0.001 |
| Coronary artery disease (yes) | 08 | 8.2 | 03 | 4.4 | 0.115 |
| Cerebrovascular accidents (yes) | 09 | 9.3 | 03 | 4.4 | 0.336 |
| Claudication symptoms (yes) | 19 | 19.6 | 02 | 2.9 | <0.001 |
| Smoking status among male participants | |||||
| Current smokers | 17 | 36.9 | 05 | 12.1 | 0.014 |
| Former smokers | 15 | 32.6 | 18 | 43.9 | 0.890 |
Figure 1ROC curve for ABPI for having PAD among study population. Diagonal segments are produced by ties.
Statistics of the area under the curve of the ROC curve for the ABPI against diagnosis of PAD by arterial colour duplex scan.
| AUC | Standard errora | Asymptomatic Sig.b | Asymptomatic 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower bound | Upper bound | |||
| 0.91 | 0.051 | 0.000 | 0.809 | 1.01 |
aUnder the nonparametric assumption. bNull hypothesis: true area = 0.5.
Sensitivity and specificity for selected threshold levels of levels of ABPI for detecting a ≥ 50% narrowing of arterial luminal diameter anywhere in the lower limb.
| Threshold levels | Sensitivity | Specificity | Distance from the curve ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.83 | 73.9 | 100 | 0.0681 |
| 0.85 | 82.6 | 100 | 0.0302 |
| 0.86 | 82.6 | 99.5 | 0.0303 |
| 0.89 | 87.0 | 99.1 | 0.0169 |
| 0.91 | 87.0 | 98.6 | 0.0170 |
| 0.93 | 87.0 | 98.2 | 0.0172 |
| 0.94 | 87.0 | 97.7 | 0.0174 |
| 1.17 | 91.3 | 39.2 | 0.3772 |
| 1.18 | 95.7 | 31.8 | 0.4669 |
| 1.25 | 95.7 | 4.1 | 0.3499 |
| 1.26 | 95.7 | 1.4 | 0.7414 |
| 1.27 | 1.000 | 0.5 | 0.9900 |
| 1.28 | 1.000 | 0 | 1.0000 |
ABPI: ankle brachial pressure index.
Validity of the ABPI of 0.89 as an indicator of PAD.
| Cutoff value | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | LR+ | LR− |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.89 | 87.0% | 99.1% | 98.9% | 88.4% | 96.6 | 0.13 |
PPV: positive predictive value, NPV: negative predictive value, LR+: likelihood ratio positive, and LR −: likelihood ratio negative.