ArticleAnatolian journal of cardiology2024
A Comparison of Oscillometrically Measured Ankle-to-Brachial Mean Arterial Pressure Ratio and Ankle-Brachial Index in Predicting Cardiovascular Events and All-Cause Mortality.
Article in Anatolian journal of cardiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe oscillometrically measured ankle-brachial index (omABI), which is determined by the ratio of ankle to brachial systolic blood pressure measured through oscillography, has been demonstrated as a robust predictor of cardiovascular events. However, the reliability of mean arterial pressure measured by oscillography may be higher than that of systolic blood pressure based on the principle of oscillographic oscillation. We aimed to compare the predictive value of oscillometrically measured ankle-tobrachial mean arterial pressure ratio (omMAPR) and omABI for cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality.
methodsThe observation cohort consisted of a total of 37 803 employees from the Chinese Kailuan Group who underwent limb blood pressure measurements during their participation in physical examination between 2010 and 2017.
resultsAfter an average follow-up period of 3 years, a total of 589 cardiovascular events and 570 cases of all-cause mortality were observed. The predictive performance of omMAPR was found to be slightly superior to omABI in terms of cardiovascular events (C-statistics: 0.55 vs. 0.51, P < .001) and all-cause mortality (C-statistics: 0.60 vs. 0.55, P <.001). After adjusting for confounders, within a specific range (omMAPR ≤ 1.06 or omABI ≤ 1.12), each 0.1-unit increase in omMAPR was associated with reductions of 14% (HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.77-0.96) and 23% (HR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.70-0.84) in cardiovascular events and all cause mortality, respectively, while each 0.1-unit increase in omABI was associated with reductions of 12% (HR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.79-0.97) and 22% (HR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.72-0.85) in cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality, respectively. However, once out of that range (omMAPR > 1.06 or omABI > 1.12), neither omMAPR nor omABI was significantly associated with cardiovascular events or all-cause mortality.
conclusionBoth omMAPR and omABI within specific ranges (omMAPR ≤ 1.06 or omABI ≤ 1.12) were independent predictors for cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. Moreover, omMAPR exhibited a slightly superior predictive ability compared to omABI in relation to cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. The trial registration number is ChiCTR-TNRC-11001489.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.