Utility and barriers to performance of the ankle brachial index in primary care practice

Abstract

Peripheral arterial disease is prevalent, associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and is underdiagnosed. Nevertheless, systematic efforts to provide early office-based peripheral arterial disease detection are not routinely implemented in office practice. The PARTNERS Program implemented the ankle brachial index (ABI) measurement in primary care outpatient clinics in order to model practical dissemination of this technique and thus improve office-based peripheral arterial disease detection. The objective of this study was to identify clinician-defined factors that were perceived to foster acceptance of, or create barriers to, the use of the ABI in office practice. The ABI Utilization Survey was administered to primary care clinicians who participated in the PARTNERS Program, as well as to additional primary care clinicians who participated in the PARTNERS Preceptorship. The survey assessed six parameters: pre- and post-participation office ABI utilization; perceived clinical utility of the ABI; perceived value of the ABI data relative to other commonly used office disease detection methods; feasibility of implementing office-based ABI testing; definition of factors limiting utilization of the ABI in office practice; and the role of office staff in performing the ABI test. Survey data were obtained from 886 respondents. A total of 68% of respondents did not measure the ABI prior to participation in the PARTNERS Program. After Program participation, the frequency of office ABI use increased from 12% to 43% weekly and 13% to 39% monthly. The few participants who reported using the ABI only once a year (annually) did not significantly change after the program. Most clinicians believed that the ABI was useful in the diagnosis and management of both symptomatic (96%) and asymptomatic (89%) peripheral arterial disease. Moderate to major barriers to use of the ABI included time constraints (56%), lack of reimbursement (45%), and staff availability (45%). Nearly all (88%) clinicians believed that it was feasible to incorporate ABI into daily practice. Overall, most clinicians (57 75%) believed that ABI was equal to, or more useful, than other widely available and reimbursed screening tests in preserving their patients’ health. In conclusion, the ABI was perceived by primary care clinicians to be a clinically useful diagnostic test. Limited reimbursement and time were identified as the primary barriers to its widespread use. Once learned, most clinicians stated that the ABI would continue to be frequently used in their office practice. The ABI is a simple peripheral arterial disease detection tool that can be successfully applied in primary care office practices.

Keywords

ankle brachial index atherosclerosis claudication peripheral arterial disease prevention

References

Hirsch AT , Criqui MH , Treat-Jacobson D et al. Peripheral arterial disease detection, awareness, and treatment in primary care. JAMA 2001; 286:1317-1324.

Hiatt WR. Medical treatment of peripheral arterial disease and claudication. N Engl J Med 2001; 344:1608-1621.

Newman AB , Sutton-Tyrrell K , Vogt MT , Kuller LH. Morbidity and mortality in hypertensive adults with a low ankle=arm blood pressure index. JAMA 1993; 270:487-489.

Newman AB , Shemanski L , Manolio TA et al. Ankle arm index as a predictor of cardiovascular disease and mortality in the Cardiovascular Health Study. The Cardiovascular Health Study Group. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 1999; 19: 538-545.

Criqui MH , Langer RD , Fronek A et al. Mortality over a period of 10 years in patients with peripheral arterial disease. N Engl J Med 1992; 326:381-386.

MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2002; 360:7-22.

CAPRIE Steering Committee . A randomised, blinded, trial of clopidogrel versus aspirin in patients at risk of ischaemic events (CAPRIE). Lancet 1996; 348: 1329-1339.

Criqui MH , Fronek A , Barrett-Connor E et al. The prevalence of peripheral arterial disease in a defined population. Circulation 1985; 71: 510-515.

Leng GC , Lee AJ , Fowkes FG et al. Incidence, natural history and cardiovascular events in symptomatic and asymptomatic peripheral arterial disease in the general population. Int J Epidemiol 1996; 25:1172-1181.

10.

Hirsch AT , Halverson SL , Treat-Jacobson D et al. The Minnesota Regional Peripheral Arterial Disease Screening Program: toward a definition of community standards of care. Vasc Med 2001; 6:87-96.

11.

Fowkes FG. The measurement of atherosclerotic peripheral arterial disease in epidemiological surveys. Int J Epidemiol 1988; 17:248-254.

12.

Feigelson HS , Criqui MH , Fronek A et al. Screening for peripheral arterial disease: the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of noninvasive tests in a defined population. Am J Epidemiol 1994; 140:526-534.

13.

Lijmer JG , Hunink MG , van den Dungen JJ et al. ROC analysis of noninvasive tests for peripheral arterial disease. Ultrasound Med Biol 1996; 22:391-398.

14.

Dormandy JA , Rutherford RB. Management of peripheral arterial disease (PAD). TASC Working Group. TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC). J Vasc Surg 2000; 31 (1 Pt 2): S1-S296.

15.

Vogt MT , Cauley JA , Newman AB et al. Decreased ankle/arm blood pressure index and mortality in elderly women. JAMA 1993; 270: 465-469.