4.6 Article

The predictive value of the borderline ankle-brachial index for long-term clinical outcomes: An observational cohort study

期刊

ATHEROSCLEROSIS
卷 250, 期 -, 页码 69-76

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2016.05.014

关键词

Ankle-brachial index; Borderline; Peripheral arterial disease; Prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and aims: Low ankle-brachial index (ABI) is associated with increased mortality and an increased incidence of cardiovascular events. The purpose of this study was to investigate the value of borderline ABI in predicting clinical outcomes. Methods and results: The data were derived from the Shinken Database 2004-2012, from a single hospital-based cohort study (N = 19,994). ABI was measured in 5205 subjects; 4756 subjects whose ABI was 0.91-1.39 and having no history of peripheral artery disease were enrolled. The subjects were classified into two groups as follows: borderline ABI (0.91-1.00; n = 324) and normal ABI (1.01-1.39; n = 4432). Subjects in the borderline ABI group had more comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus, aortic disease, and stroke. Moreover, the borderline ABI group was associated with higher levels of hemoglobin A1c and brain natriuretic peptide, larger diameters of left atrium and left ventricle, and lower levels of estimated glomerular filtration rate and left ventricular ejection fraction. All-cause death and cardiovascular death occurred in 9.3% and 4.6% of subjects in the borderline ABI group, and in 2.0% and 0.8% of subjects in the normal ABI group, respectively. An adjusted Cox regression model showed that borderline ABI was associated with a higher incidence of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR] 2.27, p = 0.005) and cardiovascular death (HR 3.47, p = 0.003). Conclusion: A borderline ABI was independently associated with worse clinical outcomes in relatively high risk population. Our data should be confirmed in larger populations including those with low risk profiles. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据