Key result
Combining automated ABI and pulse volume waveforms achieves 100% sensitivity for diagnosing PAD versus ultrasound.
Why the study?
The diagnostic accuracy of automated ankle brachial index measurement and pulse volume waveform analysis compared to ultrasound duplex scan for peripheral arterial disease was unclear.
Does automated ankle brachial index measurement and pulse volume waveform analysis accurately diagnose peripheral arterial disease compared to ultrasound duplex scan in patients referred for lower limb arterial assessment?
Cross-Sectional (n=205)
Does automated ankle brachial index measurement and pulse volume waveform analysis accurately diagnose peripheral arterial disease compared to ultrasound duplex scan in patients referred for lower limb arterial assessment?
Combining automated ankle brachial index and pulse volume waveform analysis provides a highly sensitive method for ruling out peripheral arterial disease, potentially reducing unnecessary secondary care referrals.
OBJECTIVES: This cross-sectional study aimed to individually and cumulatively compare sensitivity and specificity of the (1) ankle brachial index and (2) pulse volume waveform analysis recorded by the same automated device, with the presence or absence of peripheral arterial disease being verified by ultrasound duplex scan. METHODS: Patients (n=205) referred for lower limb arterial assessment underwent ankle brachial index measurement and pulse volume waveform recording using volume plethysmography, followed by ultrasound duplex scan. The presence of peripheral arterial disease was recorded if ankle brachial index <0.9; pulse volume waveform was graded as 2, 3 or 4; or if haemodynamically significant stenosis >50% was evident with ultrasound duplex scan. Outcome measure was agreement between the measured ankle brachial index and interpretation of pulse volume waveform for peripheral arterial disease diagnosis, using ultrasound duplex scan as the reference standard. RESULTS: Sensitivity of ankle brachial index was 79%, specificity 91% and overall accuracy 88%. Pulse volume waveform sensitivity was 97%, specificity 81% and overall accuracy 85%. The combined sensitivity of ankle brachial index and pulse volume waveform was 100%, specificity 76% and overall accuracy 85%. CONCLUSION: Combining these two diagnostic modalities within one device provided a highly accurate method of ruling out peripheral arterial disease, which could be utilised in primary care to safely reduce unnecessary secondary care referrals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lewis et al. (2016) conducted a cross-sectional in peripheral arterial disease (n=205). Automated ankle brachial index and pulse volume waveform analysis vs. Ultrasound duplex scan was evaluated on agreement between the measured ankle brachial index and interpretation of pulse volume waveform for peripheral arterial disease diagnosis. Combining automated ankle brachial index and pulse volume waveform analysis yielded 100% sensitivity and 76% specificity for diagnosing peripheral arterial disease compared to ultrasound duplex scan.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: