Primary care screening for peripheral arterial disease: a cross-sectional observational study

Jane Davies, Jonathan Richards, K. Conway, J. Kenkre, J. Lewis, E. Mark Williams
{"title":"Primary care screening for peripheral arterial disease: a cross-sectional observational study","authors":"Jane Davies, Jonathan Richards, K. Conway, J. Kenkre, J. Lewis, E. Mark Williams","doi":"10.3399/bjgp17X689137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Early identification of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and subsequent instigation of risk modification strategies could minimise disease progression and reduce overall risk of cardiovascular (CV) mortality. However, the feasibility and value of primary care PAD screening is uncertain. Aim This study (the PIPETTE study — Peripheral arterial disease In Primary carE: Targeted screening and subsequenT managEment) aimed to determine the value of a proposed primary care PAD screening strategy. Outcomes assessed were: prevalence of PAD and agreement of ankle– brachial index (ABI)-defined PAD (ABI ≤0.9) with QRISK®2-defined high CV risk (≥20). Design and setting A cross-sectional observational study was undertaken in a large general practice in Merthyr Tydfil, Wales. Method In total, 1101 individuals with ≥2 pre-identified CV risk factors but no known CV disease or diabetes were invited to participate. Participants underwent ABI measurement and QRISK2 assessment, and completed Edinburgh Claudication Questionnaires. Results A total of 368 people participated in the study (participation rate: 33%). Prevalence of PAD was 3% (n = 12). The number needed to screen (NNS) to detect one new case of PAD was 31. Refining the study population to those aged ≥50 years with a smoking history reduced the NNS to 14, while still identifying 100% of PAD cases. Of participants with PAD, 33% reported severe lifestyle-limiting symptoms of intermittent claudication that warranted subsequent endovascular intervention, yet had not previously presented to their GP. The QRISK2 score predicted high CV risk in 92% of participants with PAD. Conclusion The low PAD yield and the fact that QRISK2 was largely comparable to the ABI in predicting high CV risk suggests that routine PAD screening may be unwarranted. Instead, strategies to improve public awareness of PAD are needed.","PeriodicalId":22333,"journal":{"name":"The British Journal of General Practice","volume":"136 1","pages":"e103 - e110"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The British Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp17X689137","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

Background Early identification of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and subsequent instigation of risk modification strategies could minimise disease progression and reduce overall risk of cardiovascular (CV) mortality. However, the feasibility and value of primary care PAD screening is uncertain. Aim This study (the PIPETTE study — Peripheral arterial disease In Primary carE: Targeted screening and subsequenT managEment) aimed to determine the value of a proposed primary care PAD screening strategy. Outcomes assessed were: prevalence of PAD and agreement of ankle– brachial index (ABI)-defined PAD (ABI ≤0.9) with QRISK®2-defined high CV risk (≥20). Design and setting A cross-sectional observational study was undertaken in a large general practice in Merthyr Tydfil, Wales. Method In total, 1101 individuals with ≥2 pre-identified CV risk factors but no known CV disease or diabetes were invited to participate. Participants underwent ABI measurement and QRISK2 assessment, and completed Edinburgh Claudication Questionnaires. Results A total of 368 people participated in the study (participation rate: 33%). Prevalence of PAD was 3% (n = 12). The number needed to screen (NNS) to detect one new case of PAD was 31. Refining the study population to those aged ≥50 years with a smoking history reduced the NNS to 14, while still identifying 100% of PAD cases. Of participants with PAD, 33% reported severe lifestyle-limiting symptoms of intermittent claudication that warranted subsequent endovascular intervention, yet had not previously presented to their GP. The QRISK2 score predicted high CV risk in 92% of participants with PAD. Conclusion The low PAD yield and the fact that QRISK2 was largely comparable to the ABI in predicting high CV risk suggests that routine PAD screening may be unwarranted. Instead, strategies to improve public awareness of PAD are needed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
外周动脉疾病的初级保健筛查:一项横断面观察研究
背景:外周动脉疾病(PAD)的早期识别和随后的风险调整策略可以最大限度地减少疾病进展并降低心血管(CV)死亡的总体风险。然而,初级保健PAD筛查的可行性和价值尚不确定。目的本研究(PIPETTE研究-初级保健中的外周动脉疾病:靶向筛查和后续管理)旨在确定拟议的初级保健PAD筛查策略的价值。评估的结果是:PAD的患病率和踝肱指数(ABI)定义的PAD (ABI≤0.9)与QRISK®2定义的高CV风险(≥20)的一致性。设计和设置在威尔士梅瑟蒂德菲尔的一家大型全科医院进行了一项横断面观察研究。方法共邀请1101例具有≥2个预先确定的CV危险因素但无已知CV疾病或糖尿病的个体参与研究。参与者接受ABI测量和QRISK2评估,并完成爱丁堡跛行问卷。结果共368人参与研究,参与率为33%。PAD患病率为3% (n = 12)。每发现1例新发PAD病例需要筛查(NNS)的人数为31人。将研究人群细化为年龄≥50岁且有吸烟史的人群,将NNS降低至14,同时仍能100%识别PAD病例。在患有PAD的参与者中,33%的人报告了严重的生活方式限制症状,间歇性跛行,需要随后的血管内干预,但之前没有向他们的全科医生提出。QRISK2评分预测92%的PAD患者有高CV风险。结论:低PAD产率以及QRISK2在预测高CV风险方面与ABI相当的事实表明,常规PAD筛查可能没有根据。相反,需要提高公众对PAD的认识的策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: leading the fight in primary care Dealing with symptoms in the general population: lessons learned from the Danish Symptom Cohort Towards new definitions of avoidable hospital admissions Diagnosing myeloma in general practice: how might earlier diagnosis be achieved? General practice and the Medical Licensing Assessment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1