Why the study?
Atherosclerosis is the leading cause of death in diabetes, but the association of ABI and TBI with carotid intima-media thickness in T2DM required evaluation.
Is toe-brachial index associated with carotid intima-media thickness in patients with type 2 diabetes?
Is toe-brachial index associated with carotid intima-media thickness in patients with type 2 diabetes?
In patients with type 2 diabetes, a lower toe-brachial index is associated with increased carotid intima-media thickness, suggesting its utility in predicting subclinical carotid atherosclerosis.
Supports TBI for detecting subclinical carotid atherosclerosis in T2D; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
BACKGROUND: Atherosclerosis is the leading cause of death in patients with diabetes. We aimed to evaluate the association between ankle-brachial index (ABI) and toe-brachial index (TBI) with carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). METHODS: This cross sectional study included 296 patients with T2DM who met the American Diabetes Association criteria for the assessment of peripheral arterial atherosclerosis. The ABI ≤ 0.9 and TBI ≤ 0.7 were considered as abnormal values. Linear and logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between TBI/ABI and CIMT. RESULTS: Right CIMT was significantly greater in the low TBI group (p = 0.03) while, left CIMT did not show a significant difference. Each 0.1-unit decrease in TBI value was independently associated with 0.017 mm increase in the right CIMT (β ± SE; -0.017 ± 0.005, p = 0.002) and with odds of the presence of increased CIMT [odds ratio and 95% confidence interval: 1.21 (1.02, 1.44)] after adjustment with all traditional risk factors. There was not any significant association between ABI and increased CIMT. CONCLUSIONS: Beyond a suitable tool for the diagnosis of peripheral artery disease in patients with T2DM, TBI can be applied for prediction of subclinical carotid atherosclerosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Amirkhiz et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: