Accuracy of the ankle-brachial index using the SCVL®, an arm and ankle automated device with synchronized cuffs, in a population with increased cardiovascular risk
David Rosenbaum1,2, Sandra Rodriguez-Carranza1,3, Patrick Laroche4, Eric Bruckert1,2, Philippe Giral1,2, Xavier Girerd1,2
1Unité de Prévention Cardiovasculaire, Service d'Endocrinologie-Métabolisme, Assistance Publique/Hôpitaux de Paris, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière – Université Pierre et Marie Curie, 2Dyslipoproteinemia and Atherosclerosis Research Unit, National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM) and Pierre et Marie Curie University (UPMC – Paris VI), Paris, France; 3Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán Departamento de Endocrinología y Metabolismo, Delegación Tlalpan, México Distrito Federal; 4STACTIS, Paris, France
Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of the ankle brachial index (ABI) measured with the SCVL® (“screening cardiovascular lab”; GenNov, Paris, France), an automated device with synchronized arm and ankle cuffs with an automatic ABI calculation.
Methods: Patients were consecutively included in a cardiovascular prevention unit if they presented with at least two cardiovascular risk factors. ABI measurements were made using the SCVL, following a synchronized assessment of brachial and ankle systolic pressure. These values were compared to the ABI obtained with the usual Doppler-assisted method.
Results: We included 157 patients. Mean age was 59.1 years, 56.8% had hypertension, 22.3% had diabetes mellitus, and 17.6% were current smokers. An abnormal ABI was observed in 17.2% with the SCVL and in 16.2% with the Doppler. The prevalence rates of an abnormal ABI by patient measured with each device, ie, 15.7% (confidence interval [CI] 0.95: [11.8; 20.4]) or 14.3% (CI 0.95: [10.7; 18.9]), did not differ. The coefficient of variation of Doppler and SCVL measures was 15.8% and 15.1%, respectively. The regression line between the two measurement methods was statistically significant. The value-to-value comparison also shows a difference of mean equal to 0.010 (CI 0.95: [–0.272; 0.291]) (r = –0.055). Reproducibility of ABI measurements with the SCVL showed a difference of mean equal to 0.009 (CI 0.95: [–0.203; 0.222]), without heteroscedasticity (r = –0.003).
Conclusion: The SCVL is a fast and easy to use automated oscillometric device for the determination of ABI. The use of this two-synchronized-cuff device correlates well with the gold standard Doppler ultrasound method and is reproducible. The SCVL may ease the screening for peripheral arterial disease in routine medical practice.
Keywords: ankle brachial index, automated device, peripheral arterial disease screening
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]
Readers of this article also read:
van de Hoef TP, Meuwissen M, Piek JJ
Published Date: 3 December 2015
Maresova P, Penhaker M, Selamat A, Kuca K
Published Date: 3 October 2015
Mutations in presenilin 2 and its implications in Alzheimer’s disease and other dementia-associated disorders
Cai Y, An SSA, Kim SY
Published Date: 14 July 2015
Management of patients with type 2 diabetes and mild/moderate renal impairment: profile of linagliptin
Published Date: 14 May 2015
Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion in the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: systematic review and a meta-analysis
Wen ZQ, Du JY, Ling ZH, Xu HD, Lin XJ
Published Date: 29 January 2015
Patient preference and ease of use for different coagulation factor VIII reconstitution device scenarios: a cross-sectional survey in five European countries
Cimino E, Linari S, Malerba M, Halimeh S, Biondo F, Westfeld M
Published Date: 12 December 2014
Shuster JE, Bleske BE, Dorsch MP
Published Date: 13 June 2012
Salazar Vázquez BY
Published Date: 30 December 2011
Pitipol Choopong, Nattaporn Tesavibul, Nattawut Rodanant
Published Date: 14 July 2010
Ravi Vachhani, Doumit Bouhaidar, Alvin Zfass, et al
Published Date: 22 June 2010