Floriane Catillon1, Stéphane Tuffier2, Antoine Guilcher3, Quentin Tollenaere3, Antoine Métairie3, Annaïg Miossec3, Chadi Mauger4, Damien Laneelle5, Guillaume Mahé6. 1. CHU Rennes, Médecine Vasculaire, Rennes, France. 2. Univ Rennes 1, Public Health Department, Rennes, France. 3. CHU Rennes, Médecine Vasculaire, Rennes, France; Univ Rennes 1, INSERM CIC 1414, Rennes, France. 4. Médecine Vasculaire, CH Saint Malo, Saint Malo, France. 5. CHU Caen Normandie, Médecine Vasculaire, Caen, France. 6. CHU Rennes, Médecine Vasculaire, Rennes, France; Univ Rennes 1, INSERM CIC 1414, Rennes, France. Electronic address: maheguillaume@yahoo.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pressure measurement is a key component in the diagnosis of lower extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD) but is technically challenging and time-consuming for nonvascular specialists, thus hindering its wider implementation. The aim of this study was to assess the proficiency of students at obtaining satisfactory ankle or toe pressure readings for PAD diagnosis using 2 automated devices. METHODS: Medical students followed a training session after which they performed ankle and toe pressure measurements to calculate the ankle-brachial index (ABI) using the MESI ABPI MD® device, and the toe-brachial index (TBI) using the SYSTOE® device. Blinded vascular specialists took the same measurements. Use of the automated devices was considered satisfactory when a valid reading was measured in as few attempts as possible. A comparison was made of each student's proficiency at performing valid ankle and toe pressure measurements. The secondary objective was to compare the readings taken by the vascular specialists with those of the students. RESULTS: Forty-three medical students were included. Mean number of attempts was 1.23 ± 0.48 with the MESI ABPI MD device and 1.44 ± 0.55 with the SYSTOE device (P = 0.04). There was no statistically significant difference between ABI readings taken by the students and those taken by the vascular specialists, 1.17 (0.90; 1.39) vs. 1.18 (0.86; 1.39) (P = 0.33), contrary to TBI readings 0.70 (0.22; 1.74) vs. 0.72 (0.23; 1.16) (P = 0.03). Measurement duration for the students and vascular specialists was 3.75 min ± 1.12 min and 2.26 min ± 0.82 min (P < 0.01) with the MESI ABPI MD device and 4.30 min ± 1.23 min and 3.33 min ± 1.49 min (P = 0.03) with the SYSTOE device. Correlation coefficients between the students and the vascular specialists were 0.56 and 0.34 with the MESI ABPI MD and SYSTOE devices (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: After a brief theoretical training session, the medical students were better at taking ankle pressure measurements than toe pressure measurements with an automated device for the purposes of PAD diagnosis. It would be of value to assess the advantages of these automated devices in primary care practice in future research.
BACKGROUND: Pressure measurement is a key component in the diagnosis of lower extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD) but is technically challenging and time-consuming for nonvascular specialists, thus hindering its wider implementation. The aim of this study was to assess the proficiency of students at obtaining satisfactory ankle or toe pressure readings for PAD diagnosis using 2 automated devices. METHODS: Medical students followed a training session after which they performed ankle and toe pressure measurements to calculate the ankle-brachial index (ABI) using the MESI ABPI MD® device, and the toe-brachial index (TBI) using the SYSTOE® device. Blinded vascular specialists took the same measurements. Use of the automated devices was considered satisfactory when a valid reading was measured in as few attempts as possible. A comparison was made of each student's proficiency at performing valid ankle and toe pressure measurements. The secondary objective was to compare the readings taken by the vascular specialists with those of the students. RESULTS: Forty-three medical students were included. Mean number of attempts was 1.23 ± 0.48 with the MESI ABPI MD device and 1.44 ± 0.55 with the SYSTOE device (P = 0.04). There was no statistically significant difference between ABI readings taken by the students and those taken by the vascular specialists, 1.17 (0.90; 1.39) vs. 1.18 (0.86; 1.39) (P = 0.33), contrary to TBI readings 0.70 (0.22; 1.74) vs. 0.72 (0.23; 1.16) (P = 0.03). Measurement duration for the students and vascular specialists was 3.75 min ± 1.12 min and 2.26 min ± 0.82 min (P < 0.01) with the MESI ABPI MD device and 4.30 min ± 1.23 min and 3.33 min ± 1.49 min (P = 0.03) with the SYSTOE device. Correlation coefficients between the students and the vascular specialists were 0.56 and 0.34 with the MESI ABPI MD and SYSTOE devices (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: After a brief theoretical training session, the medical students were better at taking ankle pressure measurements than toe pressure measurements with an automated device for the purposes of PAD diagnosis. It would be of value to assess the advantages of these automated devices in primary care practice in future research.
Authors: Antoine Métairie; Quentin Tollenaere; Damien Lanéelle; Alexis Le Faucheur; Estelle Le Pabic; Loukman Omarjee; Guillaume Mahé Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-09-09