Literature DB >> 28851093

The accuracy of an oscillometric ankle-brachial index in the diagnosis of lower limb peripheral arterial disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ángel Herráiz-Adillo1, Iván Cavero-Redondo2, Celia Álvarez-Bueno2, Vicente Martínez-Vizcaíno2,3, Diana P Pozuelo-Carrascosa2, Blanca Notario-Pacheco2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) remains underdiagnosed and undertreated, partly because of limitations in the Doppler ankle-brachial index (ABI), the non-invasive gold standard.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the oscillometric ABI and the Doppler ABI, and to examine the influence of two approaches to analysis: legs vs subjects and inclusion of oscillometric errors as PAD equivalents vs exclusion.
METHODS: Systematic searches in EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library databases were performed, from inception to February 2017. Random-effects models were computed with the Moses-Littenberg constant. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves (HSROC) were used to summarise the overall test performance.
RESULTS: Twenty studies (1263 subjects and 3695 legs) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio (dOR) for the oscillometric ABI was 32.49 (95% CI: 19.6-53.8), with 65% sensitivity (95% CI: 57-74) and 96% specificity (95%CI: 93-99). In the subgroup analysis, the "per subjects" group showed a better performance than the "per legs" group (dOR 36.44 vs 29.03). Similarly, an analysis considering oscillometric errors as PAD equivalents improved diagnostic performance (dOR 31.48 vs 28.29). The time needed for the oscillometric ABI was significantly shorter than that required for the Doppler ABI (5.90 vs 10.06 minutes, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The oscillometric ABI showed an acceptable diagnostic accuracy and feasibility, potentially making it a useful tool for PAD diagnosis. We recommend considering oscillometric errors as PAD equivalents, and a "per subject" instead of a "per leg" approach, in order to improve sensitivity. Borderline oscillometric ABI values in diabetic population should raise concern of PAD.
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28851093     DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.12994

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Clin Pract        ISSN: 1368-5031            Impact factor:   2.503


  5 in total

1.  Prognostic impact of the ankle-brachial index on the development of micro- and macrovascular complications in individuals with type 2 diabetes: the Rio de Janeiro Type 2 Diabetes Cohort Study.

Authors:  Claudia R L Cardoso; Juliana V Melo; Guilherme C Salles; Nathalie C Leite; Gil F Salles
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2018-08-15       Impact factor: 10.122

2.  Assessment of the systolic rise time by photoplethysmography in peripheral arterial diseases: a comparative study with ultrasound Doppler.

Authors:  Samantha Amrani; Kornelia Eveilleau; Verena Fassbender; Hasan Obeid; Imad Abi-Nasr; Pascal Giordana; Magid Hallab; Georges Leftheriotis
Journal:  Eur Heart J Open       Date:  2022-04-28

3.  Assessment of peripheral artery disease risk in building construction workers by Ankle-Brachial index measurement with automated oscillometric and hand-held Doppler device.

Authors:  Manish K Verma; Vibha Gangwar; Rajani B Jasrotia; Nitin A John
Journal:  J Family Med Prim Care       Date:  2022-01-31

4.  Diagnostic Performance of Ankle-Brachial Pressure Index in Lower Extremity Arterial Disease.

Authors:  Mohammed Alagha; Thomas M Aherne; Ahmed Hassanin; Adeel S Zafar; Doireann P Joyce; Waqas Mahmood; Muhammad Tubassam; Stewart R Walsh
Journal:  Surg J (N Y)       Date:  2021-07-19

5.  Instantaneous frequency from Hilbert-Huang transformation of digital volume pulse as indicator of diabetes and arterial stiffness in upper-middle-aged subjects.

Authors:  Hai-Cheng Wei; Ming-Xia Xiao; Hong-Yu Chen; Yun-Qin Li; Hsien-Tsai Wu; Cheuk-Kwan Sun
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 4.379

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.