T he ankle-brachial index (ABI) is the ratio of the systolic blood pressure (SBP) measured at the ankle to that measured at the brachial artery. Originally described by Winsor 1 in 1950, this index was initially proposed for the noninvasive diagnosis of lower-extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD). 2,3 Later, it was shown that the ABI is an indicator of atherosclerosis at other vascular sites and can serve as a prognostic marker for cardiovascular events and functional impairment, even in the absence of symptoms of PAD. 4 -6 Rationale for Standardization of the ABIThe current lack of standards for measurement and calculation of the ABI leads to discrepant results with significant impact from clinical, public health, and economic standpoints. Indeed, the estimated prevalence of PAD may vary substantially according to the mode of ABI calculation. [7][8][9] In a review of 100 randomly selected reports using the ABI, multiple variations in technique were identified, including the position of the patient during measurement, the sizes of the arm and leg cuffs, the location of the cuff on the extremity, the method of pulse detection over the brachial artery and at the ankles, whether the arm and ankle pressures were measured bilaterally, which ankle pulses were used, and whether a single or replicate measures were obtained. 10 There is controversy about what ABI threshold should be used to diagnose PAD. The ABI threshold most commonly used is Յ0.90 based on studies reporting Ͼ90% sensitivity and specificity to detect PAD compared with angiography. 2,3 These studies were limited in that they included mostly older white men with PAD or who were at high risk for PAD and compared them with a younger healthy group. A recent metaanalysis of 8 studies of diverse populations, including diabetic patients, confirmed a high specificity but lower sensitivity (at best Ͻ80%) than that reported in earlier studies. 11 Similar to other vascular markers such as carotid intimamedia thickness 12 or coronary artery calcium score, 13 standardization of the techniques used to measure the ABI and the calculation and interpretation of its values is necessary. Aims and ScopeThe goals for this document are to provide a comprehensive review of the relevant literature on the measurement of the The American Heart Association makes every effort to avoid any actual or potential conflicts of interest that may arise as a result of an outside relationship or a personal, professional, or business interest of a member of the writing panel. Specifically, all members of the writing group are required to complete and submit a Disclosure Questionnaire showing all such relationships that might be perceived as real or potential conflicts of interest.This statement was approved by the American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee on September 10, 2012. A copy of the document is available at http://my.americanheart.org/statements by selecting either the "By Topic" link or the "By Publication Date" link. To purchase additional repri...

Context-Prediction models to identify healthy individuals at high risk of cardiovascular disease have limited accuracy. A low ankle brachial index is an indicator of atherosclerosis and has the potential to improve prediction.Objective-To determine if the ankle brachial index provides information on the risk of cardiovascular events and mortality independently of the Framingham Risk Score and can improve risk prediction.

Our data on asymptomatic and unknown PAOD cases show that GPs can still enhance their efforts towards (secondary) prevention of atherosclerosis.

The current study describes the age- and sex-specific incidence rates and risk factors for asymptomatic and symptomatic peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD) among 2,327 subjects and the incidence of intermittent claudication in asymptomatic PAOD subjects. The study population was selected from 18 general practice centers in the Netherlands. PAOD was assessed with the ankle-brachial blood pressure index, and intermittent claudication was assessed with a modified version of the Rose questionnaire. After 7.2 years, the overall incidence rate for asymptomatic PAOD, using the person-years method, was 9.9 (95% confidence interval (CI): 7.3, 18.8) per 1,000 person-years at risk. The rate was 7.8 (95% CI: 4.9, 20.3) for men and 12.4 (95% CI: 7.7, 24.8) for women. For symptomatic PAOD, the incidence rate was 1.0 (95% CI: 0.7, 7.5) overall, 0.4 (95% CI: 0.3, 10.0) for men, and 1.8 (95% CI: 1.0, 10.3) for women. Multivariate analyses showed that increasing age, smoking, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus were the most important risk factors. The overall incidence rate for intermittent claudication among PAOD subjects who were asymptomatic at baseline was 90.5 per 1,000 person-years at risk (95% CI: 36.4, 378.3). The incidence of asymptomatic PAOD was higher than the incidence of symptomatic PAOD, with women developing PAOD more often than men. In the development of preventive strategies, modification of atherosclerotic risk factors, such as smoking, hypertension, and diabetes, should be the main goals.

Objective To validate the use of the Wells clinical decision rule combined with a point of care D-dimer test to safely exclude pulmonary embolism in primary care.Design Prospective cohort study. Setting Primary care across three different regions of the Netherlands (Amsterdam, Maastricht, and Utrecht).Participants 598 adults with suspected pulmonary embolism in primary care.Interventions Doctors scored patients according to the seven variables of the Wells rule and carried out a qualitative point of care D-dimer test. All patients were referred to secondary care and diagnosed according to local protocols. Pulmonary embolism was confirmed or refuted on the basis of a composite reference standard, including spiral computed tomography and three months' follow-up.Main outcome measures Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity), proportion of patients at low risk (efficiency), number of missed patients with pulmonary embolism in low risk category (false negative rate), and the presence of symptomatic venous thromboembolism, based on the composite reference standard, including events during the follow-up period of three months. ResultsPulmonary embolism was present in 73 patients (prevalence 12.2%). On the basis of a threshold Wells score of ≤4 and a negative qualitative D-dimer test result, 272 of 598 patients were classified as low risk (efficiency 45.5%). Four cases of pulmonary embolism were observed in these 272 patients (false negative rate 1.5%, 95% confidence interval 0.4% to 3.7%). The sensitivity and specificity of this combined diagnostic approach was 94.5% (86.6% to 98.5%) and 51.0% (46.7% to 55.4%), respectively.Conclusion A Wells score of ≤4 combined with a negative qualitative D-dimer test result can safely and efficiently exclude pulmonary embolism in primary care. IntroductionFor many doctors, patients with unexplained shortness of breath or pleuritic chest pain pose a diagnostic dilemma. In particular doctors in primary care, who in many countries are the first to be consulted when patients have these symptoms, have to differentiate between common self limiting diseases, such as myalgia or respiratory tract infections, and the rarer life threatening diseases such as pulmonary embolism. As the symptoms of pulmonary embolism may be relatively mild, it can be easily missed, 1 2 and because pulmonary embolism has a high mortality doctors do not always get another chance if it is misdiagnosed.3 As a result, most doctors in primary care have a low threshold for referring patients with suspected pulmonary To stratify patients with suspected pulmonary embolism between a high probability (need for referral) of having the condition compared with a low probability, clinical decision rules (combining the different characteristics of patients and the disease into a score) have been developed. The clinical decision rule developed by Wells and colleagues is the most widely known, validated, and implemented tool for the detection of pulmonary embolism in secondary care. The Wells clinical decision rul...