...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Cardiovascular Disorders >Diastolic versus systolic ankle-brachial pressure index using ultrasound imaging & automated oscillometric measurement in diabetic patients with calcified and non-calcified lower limb arteries
【24h】

Diastolic versus systolic ankle-brachial pressure index using ultrasound imaging & automated oscillometric measurement in diabetic patients with calcified and non-calcified lower limb arteries

机译:糖尿病患者钙化和非钙化下肢动脉的超声成像和自动示波法测量舒张期与收缩期踝臂压力指数

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Background Ankle-brachial pressure index-systolic (ABI-s) can be falsely elevated in the presence of calcified lower limb arteries in some diabetic patients and therefore loses its value in this cohort of patients. We aim at investigating the feasibility of using the diastolic (ABI-d) instead of ABI-s to calculate the ABI in diabetic patients with calcified limb arteries. Methods A total of 51 patients were chosen from the diabetic foot clinic. Twenty six of these patients had calcified leg arteries by Duplex scan (Group A) and 25 patients did not have calcifications in their leg arteries (Group B). Twenty five healthy volunteers were enrolled in the study for group C and they were matched with other participants from group B and A in age and sex. ABI measurement was performed using “boso ABI-system 100 machine”. Systolic ABI (ABI-s) and diastolic ABI (ABI-d) were calculated based on bilateral brachial and ankle oscillometric pressures. ABI is considered normal when it is ≥0.9. Repeated measures ANOVA test was used to test for comparing mean scores for ABI-s and ABI-d across the three groups. Statistical significance is considered when P Results The mean age of all participants (±SD) was 64.30 ± 7.1 years (range, 50–82 years). ABI-s mean ± SD was 1.3 ± 0.10 (range, 1.18–1.58) in group A patients, 1.07 ± 0.05 (range, 1–1.16) in group B patients, and 1.06 ± 0.05 (range, 1–1.16) in group C volunteers. While ABI-d mean ± SD was 1.07 ± 0.05 (range, 1.1–1.17) in group A patients, 1.06 ± 0.05 (1–1.14) in group B patients, and 1.05 ± 0.04 (range, 1.01–1.14) in group C volunteers. In group A, repeated measures ANOVA test showed statistical significant difference between ABI-s and ABI-d ( P 0.05). Conclusions ABI-d may be helpful and can be used as a complementary measure instead of ABI-s in falsely elevated ABI caused by partial incompressible vessel.
机译:背景在某些糖尿病患者中,如果存在下肢动脉钙化,则踝臂压力指数收缩期(ABI-s)可能会错误地升高,因此在这一组患者中失去其价值。我们旨在研究在糖尿病性肢体动脉钙化患者中使用舒张压(ABI-d)代替ABI-s来计算ABI的可行性。方法从糖尿病足门诊选择51例患者。这些患者中有26例通过双重扫描发现了腿动脉钙化(A组),而25例患者的腿动脉没有钙化(B组)。 C组招募了25名健康志愿者,并按年龄和性别与B组和A组的其他参与者进行了配对。使用“ boso ABI-system 100机器”进行ABI测量。收缩期ABI(ABI-s)和舒张期ABI(ABI-d)是根据双侧臂和踝示波压力计算得出的。当ABI≥0.9时,被认为是正常的。重复测量ANOVA检验用于比较三组中ABI-s和ABI-d的平均得分。当P结果所有参与者的平均年龄(±SD)为64.30±7.1岁(范围50-82岁)时,考虑统计学意义。 A组患者的ABI-s平均±SD为1.3±0.10(范围1.18–1.58),B组患者为1.07±0.05(范围1–1.16),B组为1.06±0.05(范围1,1-1.16) C志愿者。 A组患者的ABI-d平均±SD为1.07±0.05(范围1.1–1.17),B组患者为1.06±0.05(1-1.14),C组为1.05±0.04(范围1.01–1.14)志愿者。在A组中,重复测量的ANOVA测试显示ABI-s和ABI-d之间具有统计学显着性差异(P 0.05)。结论ABI-d可能是有帮助的,可以代替部分不可压血管引起的ABI错误升高而作为ABI-s的补充措施。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号