Measurement of the ankle brachial index with a non-mercury sphygmomanometer in diabetic patients: a concordance study

Instruments of Choice for Assessment and Monitoring Diabetic Foot: A Systematic Review

Diabetic foot is the most frequent disorder among the chronic complications of diabetes, happening in 25% of patients. Objective clinical outcome measures are tests or clinical instruments that provide objective values for result measurement. The aim of this study was to carry out a systematic review of specific objective clinical outcome measures focused on the assessment and monitoring of diabetic foot disorders. The databases used were PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, PEDro, Cochrane, SciELO and EMBASE. Search terms used were foot, ankle, diabet*, diabetic foot, assessment, tools, instruments, objective outcome measures, valid*, reliab*. Because of the current published evidence, diabetic neuropathy assessment via sudomotor analysis, cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy and peripheral vascular disease detection by non-invasive electronic devices, wound 3D dimensional measurement, hyperspectral imaging for ulcer prediction and the probe-to-bone test for osteomyelitis diagnosis were highlighted in this study.

Comparison of ankle-brachial index (ABI) measured by an automated oscillometric apparatus with that by standard hand-held doppler in patients with Type-2 diabetes

Objective:

To compare the difference between an automated oscillometric ABI measurement as compared to standard hand-held doppler ABI in patients with Type-2 diabetes.

Methods:

This prospective study was conducted at foot clinic of Baqai Institute of Diabetology and Endocrinology (BIDE), Baqai Medical University (BMU), a tertiary care unit, Karachi-Pakistan. The duration of study was February 2018 to March 2018. Patients with Type-2 diabetes attending the outpatient department (OPD) of foot clinic, irrespective of their symptoms were included. Baseline demographic, anthropometric measurements and biochemical parameters were recorded. The ABI was calculated with both devices by an automated oscillometric machine and standard hand-held doppler with the same investigator.

Results:

Total of 93 patients with Type-2 diabetes, 18 (19.4%) females and 75(80.6%) males were recruited. Mean age was 54.67±9.59 years and mean systolic/diastolic blood pressure was 131.38±20.2/ 80.36±10.23mmHg. Most of the patients had poor glycemic control at presentation with a mean HbA1c of 9.56±2.44%. Mean standard handheld doppler ABI and automated oscillometric ABI was 1.28±1.08 and 1.07±0.23 for right foot (mean difference = 0.21; P= 0.075), and 1.14±0.45 and 1.1±0.25 for left foot (mean difference =0.04; P=0.434), respectively. Similarly, sensitivity and specificity between two modalities was observed 60% and 93.90% for right foot, meanwhile, 60% and 97.40% for left foot, respectively.

Conclusion:

An automated oscillometric method is comparable with standard handheld-doppler method. It is cost effective, convenient and less time consuming, can be widely used to measure ABI without special training.

The reliability of the ankle brachial index: a systematic review

Background

The ankle brachial index (ABI) is widely used in clinical practice as a non-invasive method to detect the presence and severity of peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Current guidelines suggest that it should be used to monitor potential progression of PAD in affected individuals. As such, it is important that the test is reliable when used for repeated measurements, by the same or different health practitioners. This systematic review aims to examine the literature to evaluate the inter- and intra-rater reliability of the ABI.

Methods

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL Complete was conducted to 20 January 2019. Two authors independently reviewed and selected relevant studies and extracted the data. Methodological quality was determined using the Quality Appraisal of Reliability (QAREL) Checklist.

Results

Fifteen studies of ABI reliability in a range of patient populations were identified as suitable for inclusion in the review: seven considered inter-rater reliability, four intra-rater reliability, and four studies evaluated both inter- and intra-rater reliability. Inter-rater reliability was found to be highly variable, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC's) ranging from poor to excellent (ICC 0.42-1.00), while intra-rater also demonstrated considerable variation, with ICCs from 0.42-0.98. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the lack of statistical information reported.

Conclusions

Results of included studies suggest the inter- and intra-tester reliability of the ABI is acceptable. However, inconsistencies in obtaining systolic pressure measurements, calculating ABI values, and incomplete reporting of methodologies and statistical analysis make it difficult to determine the validity of the results of included studies. Further research, with more consistent reliability methodology, statistical analysis and reporting conducted in populations at risk of PAD is needed to conclusively determine the ABI reliability.