Ankle-brachial index use in peripheral vascular interventions for claudication

Objective: The ankle-brachial index (ABI) has been recommended as the first-line noninvasive test to establish a diagnosis of peripheral arterial disease in patients with claudication (grade 1, level A evidence). The ABI can also be used to monitor disease progression and assess the benefits of treatment after peripheral vascular intervention (PVI). The Upper Midwest Region of the Vascular Quality Initiative has a unique balance of participation from vascular surgeons, interventional radiologists, and cardiologists performing PVI. We sought to identify the use of ABI and assess the functional outcomes of patients who had undergone PVI for claudication. Methods: We conducted a review of the Upper Midwest Region of the Vascular Quality Initiative to identify PVI performed for claudication from native artery atherosclerotic occlusive disease in nondiabetic patients from 2010 to 2020. Patients who had undergone PVI with infection, tissue loss, rest pain, bypass graft stenosis, or aneurysmal disease were excluded. The primary outcomes included the ABI, ambulation status, and functional status before and after PVI. Results: A total of 3787 patients (58.0% male, 42.0% female; mean age, 68.4 years) who had undergone 3830 procedures were identified. Of the 3787 patients, 2665 (69.5%) had had the ABI measured: 1803 (47.1%) before PVI only, 190 (4.9%) after PVI only, and 862 (22.5%) before and after PVI. In addition, 975 patients (25.5%) had never had the ABI performed. Statistical analysis of the entire cohort found no change in ambulation status (P = .33-.95 for all comparisons) or functional status (P = .42-.61 for all comparisons) regardless of the use of the ABI. However, a significant number of patients who had never had the ABI measured had decreased from full functional status before PVI to only being functional with light work after PVI (P = .015). Conclusions: Despite the grade 1, level A evidence, ABI had been used before and after PVI for only 22.5% of the patients who had undergone PVI for claudication. In addition, we found overall functional status had decreased significantly after PVI for those patients who had never had an ABI performed. Accurately identifying patients with claudication due to PAD using the ABI remains critically important before PVI. Given the lack of overall improvement in ambulation after PVI found in the present study, identifying the patients who will benefit from PVI to treat claudication remains elusive.