Profound influence of different methods for determination of the ankle brachial index on the prevalence estimate of peripheral arterial disease
2007

Impact of Different Methods for Measuring Ankle Brachial Index on Peripheral Arterial Disease Estimates

Sample size: 6880 publication Evidence: high

Author Information

Author(s): Stefan F. Lange, Hans-Joachim Trampisch, David Pittrow, Harald Darius, Matthias Mahn, Jens R. Allenberg, Gerhart Tepohl, Roman L. Haberl, Curt Diehm

Primary Institution: Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Bochum

Hypothesis

Different methods of calculating the ankle brachial index (ABI) will yield varying prevalence estimates of peripheral arterial disease (PAD).

Conclusion

Different methods for ABI determination significantly affect the estimation of PAD prevalence, but do not substantially alter the strength of associations between PAD and cardiovascular events.

Supporting Evidence

  • The estimated prevalence of PAD varied significantly between different ABI calculation methods.
  • Method #1 yielded the lowest prevalence estimate of 18.0%, while method #2 yielded the highest at 34.5%.
  • The odds ratio for the association of PAD and cardiovascular events varied between 1.7 and 2.2 depending on the method used.

Takeaway

This study shows that how you measure blood flow in your legs can change how many people are found to have a problem with their blood vessels, but it doesn't change how those problems relate to heart issues.

Methodology

The study compared five different methods of ABI calculation using Doppler ultrasound in 6,880 primary care patients aged 65 and older.

Potential Biases

Potential selection bias due to the exclusion of patients with life expectancy less than 6 months.

Limitations

The study may not be representative of all age groups as younger patients were over-represented and older patients under-represented.

Participant Demographics

Participants were 6,880 primary care patients aged 65 years and older, with a gender distribution similar to the general population in Germany.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1186/1471-2458-7-147

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication