English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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  < .05.    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  < 0.001) whereas in group B & C was not ( 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.

bmc cardiovascular disorders

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