scholarly journals Peripheral Arterial Disease: Diagnosis and Management

2008 ◽  
Vol 83 (8) ◽  
pp. 944-950 ◽  
Author(s):  
Faisal A. Arain ◽  
Leslie T. Cooper
BJGP Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. bjgpopen19X101659 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Lecouturier ◽  
Jason Scott ◽  
Nikki Rousseau ◽  
Gerard Stansby ◽  
Andrew Sims ◽  
...  

BackgroundPatients diagnosed with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) are at an increased risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, heart attack, and PAD progression. If diagnosed early, cardiovascular risk factors can be treated and the risk of other cardiovascular diseases can be reduced. There are clear guidelines on PAD diagnosis and management, but little is known about the issues faced in primary care with regards adherence to these, and about the impact of these issues on patients.AimTo identify the issues for primary care health professionals (HPs) and patients in PAD diagnosis and management, and to explore the impact of these on HPs and PAD patients.Design & settingQualitative study conducted in a primary care setting in the North East of England. Data was collected between December 2014 and July 2017.MethodSemi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with PAD register patients (n = 17), practice nurses ([PNs], n = 17), district nurses (DNs], n = 20), tissue viability nurses (n = 21), and GPs (n = 21).ResultsHPs’ attitudes to PAD, difficulty accessing tests, and patient delays impacted upon diagnosis. Some HPs had a reactive approach to PAD identification. Patients lacked understanding about PAD and some reported a delay consulting their GP after the onset of PAD symptoms. After diagnosis, few were attending for regular GP follow-up.ConclusionPatient education about PAD symptoms and risks, and questioning about exercise tolerance, could address the problem of under-reporting. Annual reviews could provide an opportunity to probe for PAD symptoms and highlight those requiring further investigation. Improved information when PAD is diagnosed and, considering the propensity for patients to tolerate worsening symptoms, the introduction of annual follow-up (at minimum) is warranted.


BMJ ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 345 (aug14 1) ◽  
pp. e5208-e5208 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Peach ◽  
M. Griffin ◽  
K. G. Jones ◽  
M. M. Thompson ◽  
R. J. Hinchliffe

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 205031211665908 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane EA Lewis ◽  
Paul Williams ◽  
Jane H Davies

Objectives: This cross-sectional study aimed to individually and cumulatively compare sensitivity and specificity of the (1) ankle brachial index and (2) pulse volume waveform analysis recorded by the same automated device, with the presence or absence of peripheral arterial disease being verified by ultrasound duplex scan. Methods: Patients (n=205) referred for lower limb arterial assessment underwent ankle brachial index measurement and pulse volume waveform recording using volume plethysmography, followed by ultrasound duplex scan. The presence of peripheral arterial disease was recorded if ankle brachial index <0.9; pulse volume waveform was graded as 2, 3 or 4; or if haemodynamically significant stenosis >50% was evident with ultrasound duplex scan. Outcome measure was agreement between the measured ankle brachial index and interpretation of pulse volume waveform for peripheral arterial disease diagnosis, using ultrasound duplex scan as the reference standard. Results: Sensitivity of ankle brachial index was 79%, specificity 91% and overall accuracy 88%. Pulse volume waveform sensitivity was 97%, specificity 81% and overall accuracy 85%. The combined sensitivity of ankle brachial index and pulse volume waveform was 100%, specificity 76% and overall accuracy 85%. Conclusion: Combining these two diagnostic modalities within one device provided a highly accurate method of ruling out peripheral arterial disease, which could be utilised in primary care to safely reduce unnecessary secondary care referrals.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document