ABSTRACT
Background For patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), co-existence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) predicts increased mortality, and such patients are also more likely to benefit from aggressive therapy. Surveillance of PAD is often neglected at health clinics. Our aim is to highlight the importance and ease of surveillance of PAD in patients with CVD. Objective To determine the prevalence of symptomatic and asymptomatic PAD in a Malaysian patient population with documented CVD. Methods and Results A total of 393 subjects with established CVD were recruited from three centres (85 women and 308 men), as part of a larger international (AGATHA) survey. PAD, determined by presence of claudicant symptoms on interview and/or abnormal ankle-brachial index (ABI)score of less than 0.9, was present in 21.4% of patients - of whom 64% were asymptomatic. Abnormal ABI is associated with higher systolic blood pressure and number of arterial beds affected. Conclusions Concomitant PAD is prevalent among CVD patients in Malaysia. ABI screening is simple and yields a high proportion of patients with extensive atherosclerosis who may require more aggressive atherosclerotic risk management.
ABSTRACT
Objectives To compare left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) determined from 64-row multi-detector computed tomography (64-row MDCT) with those determined from two dimensional echocardiography (2D echo) and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR). Methods Thirty-two patients with coronary artery disease underwent trans-thoracic 2D echo, CMR and contrast-enhanced 64-row MDCT for assessment of LVEF within 48 hours of each other. 64-row MDCT LVEF was derived using the Syngo Circulation software; CMR LVEF was by Area Length Ejection Fraction (ALEF) and Simpson method and 2D echo LVEF by Simpson method.Results The LVEF was 49.13 ± 15.91% by 2D echo, 50.72 ± 16.55% (ALEF method) and 47.65 ± 16.58%(Simpson method) by CMR and 50.00 ± 15.93% by 64-row MDCT. LVEF measurements by 64-row MDCT correlated well with LVEF measured with CMR using either the ALEF method (Pearson correlation r = 0.94, P ＜0.01) or Simpson method (r = 0.92, P＜0.01). It also correlated well with LVEF measured using 2D echo (r = 0.80, P ＜ 0.01). Conclusion LVEF measurements by 64-row MDCT correlated well with LVEF measured by CMR and 2D echo. The correlation between 64-row MDCT and CMR was better than the correlation between 2D echo with CMR. Standard data set from a 64-row MDCT coronary study can be reliably used to calculate the LVEF.