Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2024 Aug;28(37):1–158. doi: 10.3310/TWCG3912

Automated devices for identifying peripheral arterial disease in people with leg ulceration: an evidence synthesis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Dwayne Boyers, Moira Cruickshank, Lorna Aucott, Charlotte Kennedy, Paul Manson, Paul Bachoo, Miriam Brazzelli
PMCID: PMC11367298  PMID: 39186036

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Peripheral artery disease is a common condition caused by narrowing/blockage of the arteries, resulting in reduced blood supply. Peripheral artery disease is associated with an increased risk of vascular complications, but early treatment reduces mortality and morbidity. Leg ulcers are long-lasting wounds, usually treated by compression therapy. Compression therapy is not suitable for people with peripheral artery disease, as it can affect the arterial blood supply. In clinical practice, people with peripheral artery disease are identified by measurement of the ankle-brachial pressure index using a sphygmomanometer and manual Doppler device. However, this method can be uncomfortable for people with leg ulcers and automated devices have been proposed as a more acceptable alternative. The objective of this appraisal was to summarise the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence on the use of automated devices to detect peripheral artery disease in people with leg ulcers.

METHODS

 .

CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS

To identify reports of relevant studies, we searched major electronic databases and scrutinised the information supplied by the manufacturers of the automated devices under investigation. Due to the lack of evidence on people with leg ulcers, we considered evidence from studies of any design assessing automated devices versus an acceptable reference device in any population receiving ankle-brachial pressure index assessment. We summarised information on diagnostic accuracy of the automated devices and level of agreement with the reference device. For each device, when data permit, we pooled data across studies by conducting random-effects meta-analyses using a Hierarchical Summary Receiving Operating Characteristics model.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS

An economic model comprising a decision tree (24 weeks) and Markov models to capture lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years associated with venous, arterial and mixed aetiology disease in leg ulcer patients. Analyses were conducted from a United Kingdom National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years were discounted at 3.5% per year. Deterministic and several probabilistic analyses were used to capture uncertainty surrounding a range of optimistic and pessimistic assumptions about the impact of automated tests on health outcomes (ulcer healing and requirement for invasive management of arterial disease).

RESULTS

 .

CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS

From the 116 records retrieved by the electronic searches, we included 24 studies evaluating five devices (BlueDop Vascular Expert, BOSO ABI-System 100, Dopplex Ability, MESI ankle-brachial pressure index MD and WatchBP Office ABI). Two studies assessing people with leg ulcers found that automated devices often gave higher ankle-brachial pressure index readings than manual Doppler (underestimation of arterial disease). In the 22 studies involving people without leg ulcers, automated devices generally demonstrated good specificity and moderate specificity. Meta-analysis of 12 studies showed a pooled sensitivity of 64% (95% confidence interval 57% to 71%) and a pooled specificity of 96% (95% confidence interval 92% to 98%) for detection of peripheral artery disease.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS

Automated devices cost less than manual Doppler to deliver. However, increased risks of invasive treatment requirements for inappropriately compressed arterial/mixed ulcers due to false-negative results, and increased healing times due to delayed compression of false-positive test results mean that in most scenarios manual Doppler was less costly and had slightly higher quality-adjusted life-years than automated devices. Results are highly uncertain, dependent on many assumptions and should be interpreted cautiously.

LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

The limited evidence identified for each automated device, especially in people with leg ulcers, and its clinical heterogeneity precludes any firm conclusions on the diagnostic performance and cost-effectiveness of these devices in clinical practice.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42022327588.

FUNDING

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135478) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 37. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Plain language summary

Leg ulcers are long-lasting wounds mostly caused by problems in blood flow in the veins, which are treated by applying bandages or stockings to create a ‘compression’ effect. However, compression should not be used in people with a condition called peripheral artery disease. To identify people with peripheral artery disease who should not receive compression therapy, health professionals perform a test called ‘ankle–brachial pressure index’, which involves taking blood pressure of the arms and ankles using a device called ‘Doppler ultrasound’. The procedure is time-consuming and people with leg ulcers often find it uncomfortable. Automated devices have been proposed as a more acceptable option for assessing leg ulcers. However, we need to know whether these devices produce reliable results and represent good value for money for the National Health Service. We found 24 clinical studies that assessed 5 automated devices to measure ankle–brachial pressure index. The type of patients and clinical setting varied between studies. Two studies assessed people with leg ulcers and showed that the automated devices tended to give higher readings than standard Doppler and, therefore, may underestimate the presence of peripheral artery disease. Results of the 22 studies assessing people without leg ulcers showed that the automated devices could correctly identify people who did not have peripheral artery disease but were less precise in identifying people with peripheral artery disease. However, there was not enough evidence to confirm if these devices are reliable enough to be used in clinical practice. Compared to manual Doppler, the automated devices were less costly to deliver in clinical practice but had increased costs due to potentially inaccurate results. Our evaluation required many assumptions about how the devices would be used in practice, and there were no data on their impact on patient outcomes. Results are highly uncertain and should be interpreted cautiously. Given current evidence, it is unlikely that automated tests are a convenient option for the National Health Service.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Aung PP, Maxwell HG, Jepson RG, Price JF, Leng GC. Lipid-lowering for peripheral arterial disease of the lower limb. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;2007(4):CD000123. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000123.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  2. Morley RL, Sharma A, Horsch AD, Hinchliffe RJ. Peripheral artery disease. BMJ 2018;360:j5842. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j5842. [DOI] [PubMed]
  3. Norgren L, Hiatt WR, Dormandy JA, Nehler MR, Harris KA, Fowkes FG, TASC II Working Group. Inter-society consensus for the management of peripheral arterial disease (TASC II). J Vasc Surg 2007;45(Suppl. S):S5–67. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2006.12.037. [DOI] [PubMed]
  4. Leng GC, Lee AJ, Fowkes FG, Whiteman M, Dunbar J, Housley E, Ruckley CV. Incidence, natural history and cardiovascular events in symptomatic and asymptomatic peripheral arterial disease in the general population. Int J Epidemiol 1996;25(6):1172–81. doi: 10.1093/ije/25.6.1172. [DOI] [PubMed]
  5. Nelson EA, Bell-Syer SE. Compression for preventing recurrence of venous ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;2014(9):CD002303. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002303.pub3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  6. Callam MJ, Harper DR, Dale JJ, Ruckley CV. Chronic ulcer of the leg: clinical history. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1987;294(6584):1389–91. doi: 10.1136/bmj.294.6584.1389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  7. Nelson EA, Adderley U. Venous leg ulcers. BMJ Clin Evid 2016;2016:1902. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  8. Humphreys ML, Stewart AH, Gohel MS, Taylor M, Whyman MR, Poskitt KR. Management of mixed arterial and venous leg ulcers. Br J Surg 2007;94(9):1104–7. doi: 10.1002/bjs.5757. [DOI] [PubMed]
  9. Lorimer KR, Harrison MB, Graham ID, Friedberg E, Davies B. Assessing venous ulcer population characteristics and practices in a home care community. Ostomy Wound Manage 2003;49(5):32–4. [PubMed]
  10. Vowden KR, Vowden P. The prevalence, management and outcome for patients with lower limb ulceration identified in a wound care survey within one English health care district. J Tissue Viability 2009;18(1):13–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jtv.2008.11.002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  11. Callam MJ, Ruckley CV, Harper DR, Dale JJ. Chronic ulceration of the leg: extent of the problem and provision of care. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1985;290(6485):1855–6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.290.6485.1855. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  12. O’Meara S, Cullum N, Nelson EA, Dumville JC. Compression for venous leg ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;11(11):CD000265. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000265.pub3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  13. National Wound Care Strategy Programme. Recommendations for Lower Limb Ulcers. 2020. URL: www.nationalwoundcarestrategy.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Lower-Limb-Recommendations-WEB-25Feb21.pdf (accessed 14 March 2022).
  14. Callam MJ, Ruckley CV, Dale JJ, Harper DR. Hazards of compression treatment of the leg: an estimate from Scottish surgeons. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1987;295(6610):1382. doi: 10.1136/bmj.295.6610.1382. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  15. Hirsch AT, Criqui MH, Treat-Jacobson D, Regensteiner JG, Creager MA, Olin JW, et al. Peripheral arterial disease detection, awareness, and treatment in primary care. JAMA 2001;286(11):1317–24. doi: 10.1001/jama.286.11.1317. [DOI] [PubMed]
  16. Fowkes FG, Aboyans V, Fowkes FJ, McDermott MM, Sampson UK, Criqui MH. Peripheral artery disease: epidemiology and global perspectives. Nat Rev Cardiol 2017;14(3):156–70. doi: 10.1038/nrcardio.2016.179. [DOI] [PubMed]
  17. Pabon M, Cheng S, Altin SE, Sethi SS, Nelson MD, Moreau KL, et al. Sex differences in peripheral artery disease. Circ Res 2022;130(4):496–511. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.320702. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  18. Criqui MH, Aboyans V. Epidemiology of peripheral artery disease. Circ Res 2015;116(9):1509–26. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.303849. [DOI] [PubMed]
  19. Kalbaugh CA, Kucharska-Newton A, Wruck L, Lund JL, Selvin E, Matsushita K, et al. Peripheral artery disease prevalence and incidence estimated from both outpatient and inpatient settings among Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. J Am Heart Assoc 2017;6(5):e003796. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.116.003796. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  20. Song P, Rudan D, Zhu Y, Fowkes FJI, Rahimi K, Fowkes FGR, Rudan I. Global, regional, and national prevalence and risk factors for peripheral artery disease in 2015: an updated systematic review and analysis. Lancet Glob Health 2019;7(8):e1020–30. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30255-4. [DOI] [PubMed]
  21. Guest JF, Fuller GW, Vowden P. Cohort study evaluating the burden of wounds to the UK’s National Health Service in 2017/2018: update from 2012/2013. BMJ Open 2020;10(12):e045253. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  22. NHS. Hospital Admitted Patient Care Activity 2020–21. 2021. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/hospital-admitted-patient-care-activity (accessed 8 August 2022).
  23. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Peripheral Arterial Disease: Diagnosis and Management [CG147]. 2012. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg147 (accessed 14 March 2022).
  24. Persoon A, Heinen MM, van der Vleuten CJ, de Rooij MJ, van de Kerkhof PC, van Achterberg T. Leg ulcers: a review of their impact on daily life. J Clin Nurs 2004;13(3):341–54. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2702.2003.00859.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  25. Herber OR, Schnepp W, Rieger MA. A systematic review on the impact of leg ulceration on patients’ quality of life. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2007;5:44. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-5-44. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  26. Qiu Y, Team V, Osadnik CR, Weller CD. Barriers and enablers to physical activity in people with venous leg ulcers: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Int J Nurs Stud 2022;135:104329. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2022.104329. [DOI] [PubMed]
  27. Danieluk A, Chlabicz S. Automated measurements of ankle–brachial index: a narrative review. J Clin Med 2021;10(21):5161. doi: 10.3390/jcm10215161. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  28. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. How Should I Interpret Ankle Brachial Pressure Index (ABPI) Results? 2021. URL: https://cks.nice.org.uk/topics/leg-ulcer-venous/diagnosis/interpretation-of-abpi/ (accessed 14 March 2022).
  29. Healthcare Improvement Scotland, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Management of Chronic Venous Leg Ulcers [SIGN 120]. Edinburgh: HIS/SIGN; 2010. URL: www.sign.ac.uk/media/1058/sign120.pdf (accessed 9 August 2022).
  30. The Lymphoedema Framework. Best Practice for the Management of Lymphoedema. International Consensus. London: MEP Ltd; 2006. URL: www.lympho.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Best_practice.pdf (accessed 9 August 2022).
  31. Mixed Aetiology Leg Ulcers. 2006. URL: www.nursingtimes.net/archive/mixed-aetiology-leg-ulcers-18-04-2006/ (accessed 31 March 2022).
  32. European Wound Management Association. Understanding Compression Therapy. London: Medical Education Partnership Ltd; 2003. URL: https://ewma.org/fileadmin/user_upload/EWMA.org/Position_documents_2002-2008/Compression.pdf (accessed 14 March 2022).
  33. Grothier L. Leg Ulcer Management Guidelines. Colchester, UK: Provide; 2015. URL: www.legulcerforum.org/downloads/LUF_Leg_Ulcer_Clinical_Guidelines_15.pdf (accessed 31 March 2022).
  34. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews: CRD’s Guidance for Undertaking Systematic Reviews in Health Care. University of York; 2009. URL: www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/SysRev/!SSL!/WebHelp/SysRev3.htm (accessed 4 March 2020).
  35. Higgins J, Green S, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.2. 2021. URL: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook (accessed 14 March 2022).
  36. Whiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al., QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155(8):529–36. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009. [DOI] [PubMed]
  37. Yang B, Mallett S, Takwoingi Y, Davenport CF, Hyde CJ, Whiting PF, et al., QUADAS-C Group. QUADAS-C: a tool for assessing risk of bias in comparative diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2021;174(11):1592–9. doi: 10.7326/M21-2234. [DOI] [PubMed]
  38. Verhagen AP, De Vet HCW, De Bie RA, Kessels AGH, Boers M, Bouter LM, Knipschild PG. The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51(12):1235–41. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00131-0. [DOI] [PubMed]
  39. Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998;52(6):377–84. doi: 10.1136/jech.52.6.377. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  40. Jackson R, Ameratunga S, Broad J, Connor J, Lethaby A, Robb G, et al. The GATE frame: critical appraisal with pictures. Evid Based Med 2006;11(2):35–8. doi: 10.1136/ebm.11.2.35. [DOI] [PubMed]
  41. Deeks J, Bossuyt P, Leeflang M, Takwoingi Y, Flemyng E. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Version 2.0. 2022. URL: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook-diagnostic-test-accuracy (accessed 14 March 2022). doi: 10.1002/14651858.ED000163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  42. Harbord R, Whiting P. Metandi: meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy using hierarchical logistic regression. Stata J 2009;9(2):211–29.
  43. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 17. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC; 2019.
  44. Welsh L, Robinson L, Stephenson J. Evaluation of an automated ankle brachial pressure index calculator in a nurse-led leg ulcer clinic. Wounds UK 2016;12(2):80–7.
  45. Green J, Boast G, Calderwood R, Chambers R. Optimising the assessment and management of lower limb wounds in general practice. Primary Health Care 2020. https://doi.org/10.7748/phc.2020.e1673
  46. National Library of Medicine. Clinical Evaluation of the BlueDop Vascular Expert for Assessing Peripheral Arterial Disease. 2021. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/ NCT05073510 (accessed 14 March 2022).
  47. Diehm N, Dick F, Czuprin C, Lawall H, Baumgartner I, Diehm C. Oscillometric measurement of ankle–brachial index in patients with suspected peripheral disease: comparison with Doppler method. Swiss Med Wkly 2009;139(25-26):357–63. doi: 10.4414/smw.2009.12636. [DOI] [PubMed]
  48. Davies JH, Williams EM. Automated plethysmographic measurement of the ankle–brachial index: a comparison with the doppler ultrasound method. Hypertens Res 2016;39(2):100–6. doi: 10.1038/hr.2015.124. [DOI] [PubMed]
  49. Lewis JE, Williams P, Davies JH. Non-invasive assessment of peripheral arterial disease: automated ankle–brachial index measurement and pulse volume analysis compared to duplex scan. SAGE Open Med 2016;4:2050312116659088. doi: 10.1177/2050312116659088. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  50. Zebari F, Amlani V, Langenskiold M, Nordanstig J. Validation of an automated measurement method for determination of the ankle–brachial index. Scand Cardiovasc J 2022;56(1):73–8. doi: 10.1080/14017431.2022.2069855. [DOI] [PubMed]
  51. Lewis J, Hawkins M, Baree P, Cawley S, Dayananda S. A Comparison Between Dopplex Ability and the Doppler Method for Obtaining Ankle Brachial Pressures. Canada: Primary Care; 2010. URL: http://primarycarecanada.ca/pdf/684-DA100PB__comparison.pdf (accessed 14 March 2022).
  52. Boilley PY, Howlett J, Tollenaere Q, Miossec A, Guilcher A, Lanéelle D, Mahé G. Comparison of ankle–brachial index measured with an automatic oscillometric method with the standard continuous Doppler method and effect of rest time before the measure in patients with exertional limb symptoms. Hypertens Res 2020;43(6):585–7. doi: 10.1038/s41440-020-0403-7. [DOI] [PubMed]
  53. Špan M, Geršak G, Millasseau SC, Meža M, Košir A. Detection of peripheral arterial disease with an improved automated device: comparison of a new oscillometric device and the standard Doppler method. Vasc Health Risk Manag 2016;12:305–11. doi: 10.2147/VHRM.S106534. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  54. Babaei MR, Malek M, Rostami FT, Emami Z, Madani NH, Khamseh ME. Non-invasive vascular assessment in people with type 2 diabetes: diagnostic performance of plethysmographic-and-Doppler derived ankle brachial index, toe brachial index, and pulse volume wave analysis for detection of peripheral arterial disease. Prim Care Diabetes 2020;14(3):282–9. doi: 10.1016/j.pcd.2019.09.005. [DOI] [PubMed]
  55. Verma MK, Gangwar V, Jasrotia RB, John NA. Assessment of peripheral artery disease risk in building construction workers by ankle–brachial index measurement with automated oscillometric and hand-held Doppler device. J Family Med Prim Care 2022;11(1):139–43. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_102_21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  56. Kollias A, Xilomenos A, Protogerou A, Dimakakos E, Stergiou GS. Automated determination of the ankle–brachial index using an oscillometric blood pressure monitor: validation vs. Doppler measurement and cardiovascular risk factor profile. Hypertens Res 2011;34(7):825–30. doi: 10.1038/hr.2011.53. [DOI] [PubMed]
  57. Kordzadeh A, Hoff M, Tokidis E, King DH, Browne T, Prionidis I. Novel assessment (BlueDop) device for detection of lower limb arterial disease: a prospective comparative study. J Ultrasound Med 2018;37(3):763–8. doi: 10.1002/jum.14370. [DOI] [PubMed]
  58. Homza M, Machaczka O, Porzer M, Kozak M, Plasek J, Sipula D. Comparison of different methods of ABI acquisition for detection of peripheral artery disease in diabetic patients. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 2019;163(3):227–32. doi: 10.5507/bp.2018.046. [DOI] [PubMed]
  59. Jarai Z, Kolossvary E, Szabo I, Kiss I, Farsang C, Farkas K. The potential role of oscillometric devices for ankle–brachial index measurements in clinical practice. Orv Hetil 2018;159(5):176–82. doi: 10.1556/650.2018.30957. [DOI] [PubMed]
  60. Millen RN, Thomas KN, Majumder A, Hill BG, Van Rij AM, Krysa J. Accuracy and repeatability of the Dopplex Ability. Expert Rev Med Devices 2018;15(3):247–51. doi: 10.1080/17434440.2018.1431121. [DOI] [PubMed]
  61. Hageman D, van den Houten MML, Pesser N, Gommans LNM, Scheltinga MRM, Teijink JAW. Diagnostic accuracy of automated oscillometric determination of the ankle–brachial index in peripheral artery disease. J Vasc Surg 2021;73(2):652–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2020.05.077. [DOI] [PubMed]
  62. Catillon F, Tuffier S, Guilcher A, Tollenaere Q, Metairie A, Miossec A, et al. Proficiency of medical students at obtaining pressure measurement readings using automated ankle and toe measuring devices for diagnosis of lower extremity peripheral artery disease. Ann Vasc Surg 2020;65:183–9. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2019.10.092. [DOI] [PubMed]
  63. Varetto G, Magnoni F, Aluigi L, Antignani P, Benevento D, et al. Comparison of ankle brachial index ABI measurement between a new oscillometric device MESI ABPI Md and the standard Doppler method. Non Invasive Vascular Investig 2019;4:012.
  64. Raya R, Martinez N, Cayuelas F, Pera G, Garcia Y. Comparison of two automatic oscillometers vs the traditional method with Doppler probe in the determination of the ankle brachial index. Atencion Primaria Practica 2019;1(1):3–8.
  65. Sinski M, Styczynski G, Szmigielski C. Automated oscillometric measurement of the ankle–brachial index in patients with coronary artery disease. Hypertens Res 2013;36(1):25–8. doi: 10.1038/hr.2012.120. [DOI] [PubMed]
  66. Wohlfahrt P, Ingrischova M, Krajcoviechova A, Palous D, Dolejsova M, Seidlerova J, et al. A novel oscillometric device for peripheral arterial disease screening in everyday practice. The Czech-post MONICA study. Int Angiol 2011;30(3):256–61. [PubMed]
  67. Rodriguez-Roca GC, Villarin-Castro A, Carrasco-Flores J, Artigao-Rodenas LM, Carbayo-Herencia JA, Escobar-Cervantes C, et al., RICARTO (Riesgo Cardiovascular Y Eventos Cardiovasculares En La Población General del Área Sanitaria De Toledo) Project Working Group. Concordance between automated oscillometric measurement of ankle–brachial index and traditional measurement by eco-Doppler in patients without peripheral artery disease. Blood Press 2014;23(5):270–5. doi: 10.3109/08037051.2013.876796. [DOI] [PubMed]
  68. Boast G, Green J, Chambers R, Calderwood R. Improving assessment and management of lower limb wounds. J Community Nurs 2019;33(5):34–8.
  69. Davies JH, Kenkre J, Williams EM. Current utility of the ankle–brachial index (ABI) in general practice: implications for its use in cardiovascular disease screening. BMC Fam Pract 2014;15:69. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-15-69. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  70. National Institute for Health Care Excellence. NICE Diagnostic Assessment Programme Manual. London/Manchester. 2011. URL: www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/NICE-guidance/NICE-diagnostics-guidance/Diagnostics-assessment-programme-manual.pdf (accessed 4 March 2020). [PubMed]
  71. Moloney E, O’Connor J, Craig D, Robalino S, Chrysos A, Javanbakht M, et al. Systematic review of economic models used to compare techniques for detecting peripheral arterial disease. PharmacoEcon Open 2019;3(1):21–30. doi: 10.1007/s41669-018-0076-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  72. Itoga NK, Minami HR, Chelvakumar M, Pearson K, Mell MM, Bendavid E, Owens DK. Cost-effectiveness analysis of asymptomatic peripheral artery disease screening with the ABI test. Vasc Med 2018;23(2):97–106. doi: 10.1177/1358863X17745371. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  73. Layer A, McManus E, Levell NJ. A systematic review of model-based economic evaluations of treatments for venous leg ulcers. PharmacoEcon Open 2020;4(2):211–22. doi: 10.1007/s41669-019-0148-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  74. Cheng Q, Gibb M, Graves N, Finlayson K, Pacella RE. Cost-effectiveness analysis of guideline-based optimal care for venous leg ulcers in Australia. BMC Health Serv Res 2018;18(1):421. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3234-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  75. Iglesias CP, Birks Y, Nelson EA, Scanlon E, Cullum NA. Quality of life of people with venous leg ulcers: a comparison of the discriminative and responsive characteristics of two generic and a disease specific instruments. Qual Life Res 2005;14(7):1705–18. doi: 10.1007/s11136-005-2751-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  76. Harrison MB, Graham ID, Lorimer K, Friedberg E, Pierscianowski T, Brandys T. Leg-ulcer care in the community, before and after implementation of an evidence-based service. CMAJ 2005;172(11):1447–52. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.1041441. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  77. Finlayson K, Edwards H, Courtney M. Factors associated with recurrence of venous leg ulcers: a survey and retrospective chart review. Int J Nurs Stud 2009;46(8):1071–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.12.012. [DOI] [PubMed]
  78. Guest JF, Rana K, Singh H, Vowden P. Cost-effectiveness of using a collagen-containing dressing plus compression therapy in non-healing venous leg ulcers. J Wound Care 2018;27(2):68–78. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2018.27.2.68. [DOI] [PubMed]
  79. Clegg JP, Guest JF. Modelling the cost-utility of bio-electric stimulation therapy compared to standard care in the treatment of elderly patients with chronic non-healing wounds in the UK. Curr Med Res Opin 2007;23(4):871–83. doi: 10.1185/030079906x167705. [DOI] [PubMed]
  80. Guest JF, Fuller GW, Vowden P. Venous leg ulcer management in clinical practice in the UK: costs and outcomes. Int Wound J 2018;15(1):29–37. doi: 10.1111/iwj.12814. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  81. Health Quality Ontario. Compression stockings for the prevention of venous leg ulcer recurrence: a Health Technology Assessment. Ontario Health Technol Assess Ser 2019;19(2):1–86. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  82. Pham B, Harrison MB, Chen MH, Carley ME, Canadian Bandaging Trial Group. Cost-effectiveness of compression technologies for evidence-informed leg ulcer care: results from the Canadian Bandaging Trial. BMC Health Serv Res 2012;12:346. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-346. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  83. Rognoni C, Lugli M, Maleti O, Tarricone R. Venous stenting for patients with outflow obstruction and leg ulcers: cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses. J Comp Eff Res 2020;9(10):705–20. doi: 10.2217/cer-2020-0030. [DOI] [PubMed]
  84. Velickovic VM, Chadwick P, Rippon MG, Ilic I, McGlone ER, Gebreslassie M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of superabsorbent wound dressing versus standard of care in patients with moderate-to-highly exuding leg ulcers. J Wound Care 2020;29(4):235–46. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2020.29.4.235. [DOI] [PubMed]
  85. Atkin L, Barrett S, Chadwick P, Callaghan R, Rippon MG, Rogers AA, Simm S. Evaluation of a superabsorbent wound dressing, patient and clinician perspective: a case series. J Wound Care 2020;29(3):174–82. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2020.29.3.174. [DOI] [PubMed]
  86. Harding K, Posnett J, Vowden K. A new methodology for costing wound care. Int Wound J 2013;10(6):623–9. doi: 10.1111/iwj.12006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  87. Health Quality Ontario. Skin substitutes for adults with diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers: a health technology assessment. Ontario Health Technol Assess Ser 2021;21(7):1–165. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  88. Guest JF, Staines K, Murphy N. Cost-effectiveness of using intermittent pneumatic compression to manage hard-to-heal venous leg ulcers in the UK. J Wound Care 2021;30(7):544–52. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2021.30.7.544. [DOI] [PubMed]
  89. Guest JF, Ayoub N, McIlwraith T, Uchegbu I, Gerrish A, Weidlich D, et al. Health economic burden that different wound types impose on the UK’s National Health Service. Int Wound J 2017;14(2):322–30. doi: 10.1111/iwj.12603. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  90. Velickovic VM, Szilcz M, Milosevic Z, Godfrey T, Siebert U. Cost-effectiveness analysis of superabsorbent wound dressings in patients with moderate-to-highly exuding leg ulcers in Germany. Int Wound J 2022;19(2):447–59. doi: 10.1111/iwj.13645. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  91. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Leg Ulcer: Venous. 2021. URL: https://cks.nice.org.uk/topics/leg-ulcer-venous/ (accessed 14 March 2022).
  92. TreeAge Software. Treeage Pro 2021. Williamstown, MA: TreeAge Software LLC; 2021.
  93. Gohel MS, Heatley F, Liu X, Bradbury A, Bulbulia R, Cullum N, et al. Early versus deferred endovenous ablation of superficial venous reflux in patients with venous ulceration: the EVRA RCT. Health Technol Assess 2019;23(24):1–96. doi: 10.3310/hta23240. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  94. Diaconu C, Horodinschi R, Belciu D. Clinical presentation of lower extremity arterial disease (LEAD). E-J Cardiol Pract 2018;16(3). URL: www.escardio.org/Journals/E-Journal-of-Cardiology-Practice/Volume-16/Clinical-presentation-of-lower-extremity-arterial-disease-LEAD (accessed 17 August 2022).
  95. Kashetsky N, Sachdeva M, Lu JD, Mufti A, Kim P, Bagit A, Sibbald RG. Diagnostic accuracy of ankle–brachial pressure index compared with Doppler arterial waveforms for detecting peripheral arterial disease: a systematic review. Adv Skin Wound Care 2022;35(4):195–201. doi: 10.1097/01.ASW.0000822628.82131.1d. [DOI] [PubMed]
  96. Ro du H, Moon HJ, Kim JH, Lee KM, Kim SJ, Lee DY. Photoplethysmography and continuous-wave Doppler ultrasound as a complementary test to ankle–brachial index in detection of stenotic peripheral arterial disease. Angiology 2013;64(4):314–20. doi: 10.1177/0003319712464814. [DOI] [PubMed]
  97. Ammermann F, Meinel FG, Beller E, Busse A, Streckenbach F, Teichert C, et al. Concomitant chronic venous insufficiency in patients with peripheral artery disease: insights from MR angiography. Eur Radiol 2020;30(7):3908–14. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06696-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  98. Vascular Services Quality Improvement Programme. National Vascular Registry: 2021 Annual Report. London: National Vascular Registry; 2021. URL: www.vsqip.org.uk/reports/2021-annual-report/ (accessed 17 August 2022).
  99. Gohel MS, Mora MJ, Szigeti M, Epstein DM, Heatley F, Bradbury A, et al. Long-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of early endovenous ablation in venous ulceration: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 2020;155(12):1113–21. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.3845. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  100. Gohel MS, Barwell JR, Taylor M, Chant T, Foy C, Earnshaw JJ, et al. Long term results of compression therapy alone versus compression plus surgery in chronic venous ulceration (ESCHAR): randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2007;335(7610):83. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39216.542442.BE. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  101. Sigvant B, Lundin F, Wahlberg E. The risk of disease progression in peripheral arterial disease is higher than expected: a meta-analysis of mortality and disease progression in peripheral arterial disease. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2016;51(3):395–403. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2015.10.022. [DOI] [PubMed]
  102. Howard DP, Banerjee A, Fairhead JF, Handa A, Silver LE, Rothwell PM, Oxford Vascular Study. Population-based study of incidence of acute abdominal aortic aneurysms with projected impact of screening strategy. J Am Heart Assoc 2015;4(8):e001926. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.115.001926. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  103. Office for National Statistics. National Life Tables: UK. 2021. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/datasets/nationallifetablesunitedkingdomreferencetables (accessed 28 March 2022).
  104. Duff S, Mafilios MS, Bhounsule P, Hasegawa JT. The burden of critical limb ischemia: a review of recent literature. Vasc Health Risk Manag 2019;15:187–208. doi: 10.2147/VHRM.S209241. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  105. Lüders F, Bunzemeier H, Engelbertz C, Malyar NM, Meyborg M, Roeder N, et al. CKD and acute and long-term outcome of patients with peripheral artery disease and critical limb ischemia. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2016;11(2):216–22. doi: 10.2215/CJN.05600515. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  106. Reinecke H, Unrath M, Freisinger E, Bunzemeier H, Meyborg M, Lüders F, et al. Peripheral arterial disease and critical limb ischaemia: still poor outcomes and lack of guideline adherence. Eur Heart J 2015;36(15):932–8. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv006. [DOI] [PubMed]
  107. Beldon P. Performing a Doppler assessment. Wound Essentials 2010;5:87–90.
  108. Jones K, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2021. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit; 2021. URL: www.pssru.ac.uk/project-pages/unit-costs/unit-costs-of-health-and-social-care-2021/ (accessed 28 March 2022).
  109. NHS. National Cost Collection for the NHS. 2021. URL: www.england.nhs.uk/costing-in-the-nhs/national-cost-collection/#ncc1819 (accessed 28 March 2022).
  110. Medicines Complete. British National Formulary. London: Royal Pharmaceutical Society; 2018. URL: www.medicinescomplete.com/mc/bnf/current/index.htm (accessed 4 March 2020).
  111. Ezeofor VS, Bray N, Bryning L, Hashmi F, Hoel H, Parker D, et al. Economic model to examine the cost-effectiveness of FlowOx home therapy compared to standard care in patients with peripheral artery disease. PLOS ONE 2021;16:e0244851. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244851. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  112. Urwin S, Dumville JC, Sutton M, Cullum N. Health service costs of treating venous leg ulcers in the UK: evidence from a cross-sectional survey based in the north west of England. BMJ Open 2022;12(1):e056790. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056790. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  113. Wade R, Sideris E, Paton F, Rice S, Palmer S, Fox D, et al. Graduated compression stockings for the prevention of deep-vein thrombosis in postoperative surgical patients: a systematic review and economic model with a value of information analysis. Health Technol Assess 2015;19(98):1–220. doi: 10.3310/hta19980. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  114. Davie-Smith F, Kennon B, Wyke S, Paul L. The demographic and clinical characteristics of those with and without diabetes that undergo a lower extremity amputation in Glasgow, UK. Physiotherapy 2015;101:e299.
  115. Taylor SM, Kalbaugh CA, Blackhurst DW, Hamontree SE, Cull DL, Messich HS, et al. Preoperative clinical factors predict postoperative functional outcomes after major lower limb amputation: an analysis of 553 consecutive patients. J Vasc Surg 2005;42(2):227–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2005.04.015. [DOI] [PubMed]
  116. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2019/20. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit; 2019. URL: www.pssru.ac.uk/project-pages/unit-costs/unit-costs-2019/ (accessed 28 March 2022).
  117. Forbes JF, Adam DJ, Bell J, Fowkes FG, Gillespie I, Raab GM, et al., BASIL Trial Participants. Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL) trial: health-related quality of life outcomes, resource utilization, and cost-effectiveness analysis. J Vasc Surg 2010;51(5 Suppl.):43S–51S. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.01.076. [DOI] [PubMed]
  118. Pisa G, Reinhold T, Obi-Tabot E, Bodoria M, Brüggenjürgen B. Critical limb ischemia and its impact on patient health preferences and quality of life – an international study. Int J Angiol 2012;21(3):139–46. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1324738. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  119. Ernstsson O, Hagberg K, Janssen MF, Bonsel GJ, Korkmaz S, Zethraeus N, Heintz E. Health-related quality of life in patients with lower limb amputation – an assessment of the measurement properties of EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L using data from the Swedish Amputation and Prosthetics Registry. Disabil Rehabil 2021;44:8471–9. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2021.2015628. [DOI] [PubMed]
  120. Holler D, Claes C. von der Schulenburg JMG. Cost–utility analysis of treating severe peripheral arterial occlusive disease. Int J Angiol 2006;15(01):25–33.
  121. Simpson EL, Kearns B, Stevenson MD, Cantrell AJ, Littlewood C, Michaels JA. Enhancements to angioplasty for peripheral arterial occlusive disease: systematic review, cost-effectiveness assessment and expected value of information analysis. Health Technol Assess 2014;18(10):1–252. doi: 10.3310/hta18100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  122. Büyükkaramikli NC, Rutten-van Mölken M, Severens JL, Al M TECH-VER: a verification checklist to reduce errors in models and improve their credibility. PharmacoEcon 2019;37(11):1391–408. doi: 10.1007/s40273-019-00844-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  123. Tappenden P, Chilcott JB. Avoiding and identifying errors and other threats to the credibility of health economic models. PharmacoEcon 2014;32(10):967–79. doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0186-2. [DOI] [PubMed]
  124. Verberk WJ, Kollias A, Stergiou GS. Automated oscillometric determination of the ankle–brachial index: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hypertens Res 2012;35(9):883–91. doi: 10.1038/hr.2012.83. [DOI] [PubMed]
  125. Herráiz-Adillo A, Cavero-Redondo I, Álvarez-Bueno C, Martínez-Vizcaíno V, Pozuelo-Carrascosa DP, Notario-Pacheco B. The accuracy of an oscillometric ankle–brachial index in the diagnosis of lower limb peripheral arterial disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Clin Pract 2017;71(9):e12994. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.12994. [DOI] [PubMed]
  126. Giavarina D. Understanding Bland Altman analysis. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2015;25(2):141–51. doi: 10.11613/BM.2015.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  127. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Lower Limb Peripheral Arterial: Disease Diagnosis and Management [CG147] Appendices. London/Manchester: NICE; 2012. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg147/evidence/appendices-an-pdf-186865022 (accessed 14 March 2022).

RESOURCES