Key result
Longitudinal ABI changes predicted future CVD and mortality, with each 0.1-unit increase reducing CVD risk (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.76-0.90) and mortality risk (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.78-0.89).
Why the study?
Although ABI is associated with CVD and all-cause mortality, the impact of longitudinal ABI changes on CVD and mortality remains unclear.
Do longitudinal changes in Ankle-Brachial Index predict incident cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality in a multiethnic cohort without baseline cardiovascular disease?
Cohort (n=5,215)
Yes
Do longitudinal changes in Ankle-Brachial Index predict incident cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality in a multiethnic cohort without baseline cardiovascular disease?
Hazard Ratio: 0.83 (95% CI 0.76–0.9)
Longitudinal changes in ABI, particularly a transition from high to normal values, are strong predictors of incident cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality, highlighting the prognostic value of sequential ABI measurements.
Serial ABI monitoring may refine risk stratification; extends prior associations to longitudinal changes but leaves practice implications open.
Background The Ankle-Brachial Index (ABI) is associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality. However, the impact of longitudinal ABI changes on CVD and mortality remains unclear. Purpose To investigate clinical risk factors influencing ABI variations and evaluate the predictive value of sequential ABI measurements for future CVD and all-cause mortality in a multiethnic cohort without baseline cardiovascular disease. Methods We analyzed 5,215 participants from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) who underwent ABI measurements at two time points (2000-2002 and 2004-2005). Linear regression models were used to examine clinical factors associated with ABI changes. Cox proportional hazards models, including smooth curve fitting, were employed to assess the relationship between ABI variations and clinical outcomes. Results During a mean follow-up of 12.9 years for CVD (499 events) and 13.5 years for all-cause mortality (790 events), significant clinical factors associated with substantial ABI level changes were identified: age, smoking, interim development of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and interim development of CVD (P < 0.05 for all in multivariable model). Longitudinal ABI changes were associated with future CVD (HR=0.83 per 0.1-unit increase; 95%CI: 0.76-0.90) and all-cause mortality (HR=0.83 per 0.1-unit increase; 95%CI: 0.78-0.89). Compared to participants maintaining consistently normal ABI (1.0≤ABI<1.4), those with initially high ABI (ABI≥1.4) transitioning to normal ABI demonstrated a 187% increased CVD risk (HR=2.87, 95%CI: 1.09-7.57) and a 237% increased all-cause mortality risk (HR=3.37, 95%CI: 1.51-7.54). A non-linear U-shaped relationship was observed between ABI changes and all-cause mortality, with an inflection point at 0.163. Below this point, each 0.1-unit increase in ΔABI reduced mortality risk by 19% (HR: 0.81, 95%CI: 0.75-0.86). Conversely, beyond the inflection point, each 0.1-unit increase in ΔABI increased mortality risk by 23% (HR: 1.23, 95%CI: 0.92-1.65). Conclusion Longitudinal ABI changes are associated with traditional cardiovascular risk factors and kidney disease. ABI variations can predict future CVD and all-cause mortality in a multiethnic cohort without baseline cardiovascular disease. Particular caution is warranted when ABI transitions from high to normal values, emphasizing the necessity of comprehensive medical examination, screening, and intervention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Song et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in without baseline cardiovascular disease (n=5,215). Longitudinal ABI changes vs. consistently normal ABI was evaluated on future CVD (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.76-0.90). Longitudinal ABI changes predicted future CVD and mortality, with each 0.1-unit increase reducing CVD risk (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.76-0.90) and mortality risk (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.78-0.89).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: