Predictors of an abnormal postexercise ankle brachial index: Importance of the lowest ankle pressure in calculating the resting ankle brachial index

4Citations
Citations of this article
23Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: The postexercise ankle-brachial index (ABI) is useful in patients with suspected peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and a normal resting ABI. Our objective was to determine the independent predictors of an abnormal postexercise ABI. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that the lowest ankle systolic pressure to calculate the resting ABI would be associated with an abnormal post-exercise ABI. Methods: Among 619 consecutive patients referred for suspected PAD, we calculated the postexercise ABI in patients with a normal resting ABI. An ABI <0.90 at rest was considered abnormal. We investigated 3 definitions of an abnormal postexercise ABI, defined as either <0.90, or >5% or >20% reduction compared with rest. Results: Using multivariate analysis, the lowest ABI (calculated using the lowest and not the highest ankle systolic pressure) was consistently the most powerful independent predictor of an abnormal postexercise ABI. Patients with an abnormal lowest resting ABI were significantly more likely to have an abnormal postexercise ABI, as well as a significantly greater reduction in the ABI compared with rest. The lowest ABI had a high specificity (95%) but low sensitivity (82%) for a postexercise ABI <0.90. Conclusions: An abnormal lowest ABI (calculated with the lowest ankle systolic pressure) is the most important independent predictor of an abnormal ABI response to exercise in patients with a conventionally normal ABI. All such patients should be exercised and their ABI measured postexercise.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Armstrong, D. W. J., Tobin, C., & Matangi, M. F. (2017). Predictors of an abnormal postexercise ankle brachial index: Importance of the lowest ankle pressure in calculating the resting ankle brachial index. Clinical Cardiology, 40(11), 1163–1168. https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.22808

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free