Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2009 Sep 17.
Published in final edited form as: Diabetes Care. 1999 Jan;22(1):99–111. doi: 10.2337/diacare.22.1.99

Table 5.

New measurements in the EDIC protocol

Systolic blood pressure ratio of resting ankle to arm
Prevalence of abnormal ankle-to-arm ratio (percent in any four ratios)
Maximum intimal-medial thickness of common and internal carotid artery
Age decade n Right Left Percent <0.8 P (0.8) Percent <1.4 Percent either n Common (mm) Internal (mm)
Women* 20–29 154 1.08 ± 0.11 1.08 ± 0.13 2.6 0.9864 0.0 2.6 172 0.616 ± 0.073 0.583 ± 0.092
30–39 289 1.11 ± 0.12 1.10 ± 0.13 2.8 0.1307 5.9 8.3 278 0.657 ± 0.081 0.632 ± 0.147
40–49 202 1.09 ± 0.12 1.07 ± 0.11 3.5 0.7093 1.5 5.0 178 0.696 ± 0.079 0.719 ± 0.226
Men* 20–29 117 1.07 ± 0.11 1.08 ± 0.10 2.6 2.6 5.1 125 0.636 ± 0.059 0.629 ± 0.083
30–39 351 1.11 ± 0.12 1.10 ± 0.12 1.1 3.7 4.8 350 0.684 ± 0.083 0.684 ± 0.114
40–49 241 1.13 ± 0.13 1.12 ± 0.14 4.1 3.7 7.9 211 0.745 ± 0.104 0.806 ± 0.261

Data are n, means ± SD, or %. Dorsalis pedis and posterior tibral pressures were combined using an algorithm of Hiatt et al. (51). P values are for men vs. women.

*

P value for trend in percent <0.8: women, 0.6171; men, 0.1513. P < 0.0001 for both common and internal intimal-medial thickness; all are from Wilcoxon’s rank-sum test after linear adjustment for covariance with age.