Palpation versus hand‑held Doppler for identifying lower‑limb peripheral arteries: Time‑efficiency and reliability in healthy adults

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q4 PHYSIOLOGY
Rio Nakamine, Ryoga Matsumoto, Misaki Matsumoto, Yoshiyuki Yoshikawa, Noriaki Maeshige
{"title":"Palpation versus hand‑held Doppler for identifying lower‑limb peripheral arteries: Time‑efficiency and reliability in healthy adults","authors":"Rio Nakamine,&nbsp;Ryoga Matsumoto,&nbsp;Misaki Matsumoto,&nbsp;Yoshiyuki Yoshikawa,&nbsp;Noriaki Maeshige","doi":"10.1111/cpf.70039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Bedside lower‑limb vascular assessment commonly relies on pedal pulse palpation or hand‑held Doppler, yet their relative time‑efficiency and the reliability of Doppler measurements in novices are unclear.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Twenty healthy adults were examined by three undergraduate raters without prior Doppler experience. For dorsalis pedis, anterior tibial, and posterior tibial arteries, each rater performed three trials with palpation and with a hand‑held continuous‑wave Doppler. Primary outcomes were time‑to‑identification and identification success; for Doppler, peak systolic velocity (PSV) reliability was evaluated (intra‑ and inter‑rater intraclass correlation coefficients [ICC] and Bland–Altman).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Differences were defined as Doppler—palpation (positive values indicate longer time for Doppler). Palpation was faster than Doppler for dorsalis pedis (Hodges–Lehmann +6.47 s, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.40–8.00; <i>p</i> = 0.004) and posterior tibial arteries (+6.38 s, 1.10–13.61; <i>p</i> = 0.012). The anterior tibial artery was never identified by palpation but was identified by Doppler in all participants (exact McNemar <i>p</i> = 1.91 × 10⁻⁶). Doppler reliability for dorsalis pedis PSV was excellent within raters (ICC [3.1]: 0.926–0.971) and between raters (ICC [2.1]: 0.966), with small mean biases and narrow limits of agreement.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>In healthy adults, palpation enables faster identification of dorsalis pedis and posterior tibial pulses, whereas the deeper anterior tibial artery is consistently detected only with Doppler. Doppler‑derived PSV shows excellent reproducibility even among novice examiners. These findings provide methods-level evidence to inform protocol design and training; validation in patient populations is required before any workflow recommendations.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10504,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cpf.70039","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Bedside lower‑limb vascular assessment commonly relies on pedal pulse palpation or hand‑held Doppler, yet their relative time‑efficiency and the reliability of Doppler measurements in novices are unclear.

Methods

Twenty healthy adults were examined by three undergraduate raters without prior Doppler experience. For dorsalis pedis, anterior tibial, and posterior tibial arteries, each rater performed three trials with palpation and with a hand‑held continuous‑wave Doppler. Primary outcomes were time‑to‑identification and identification success; for Doppler, peak systolic velocity (PSV) reliability was evaluated (intra‑ and inter‑rater intraclass correlation coefficients [ICC] and Bland–Altman).

Results

Differences were defined as Doppler—palpation (positive values indicate longer time for Doppler). Palpation was faster than Doppler for dorsalis pedis (Hodges–Lehmann +6.47 s, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.40–8.00; p = 0.004) and posterior tibial arteries (+6.38 s, 1.10–13.61; p = 0.012). The anterior tibial artery was never identified by palpation but was identified by Doppler in all participants (exact McNemar p = 1.91 × 10⁻⁶). Doppler reliability for dorsalis pedis PSV was excellent within raters (ICC [3.1]: 0.926–0.971) and between raters (ICC [2.1]: 0.966), with small mean biases and narrow limits of agreement.

Conclusions

In healthy adults, palpation enables faster identification of dorsalis pedis and posterior tibial pulses, whereas the deeper anterior tibial artery is consistently detected only with Doppler. Doppler‑derived PSV shows excellent reproducibility even among novice examiners. These findings provide methods-level evidence to inform protocol design and training; validation in patient populations is required before any workflow recommendations.

触诊与手持式多普勒鉴别下肢外周动脉:健康成人的时效性和可靠性
床边下肢血管评估通常依赖于脚脉冲触诊或手持式多普勒,但其在新手中的相对时间效率和多普勒测量的可靠性尚不清楚。方法由3名没有多普勒经验的大学生评判员对20名健康成人进行检查。对于足背动脉、胫骨前动脉和胫骨后动脉,每位受试者用触诊和手持式连续波多普勒进行三次试验。主要结果为识别时间和识别成功;对于多普勒,评估峰值收缩速度(PSV)的可靠性(组内和组间组内相关系数[ICC]和Bland-Altman)。结果差异定义为多普勒触诊(阳性值表明多普勒时间较长)。触诊对足背部(hoges - lehmann +6.47 s, 95%可信区间[CI]: 2.40-8.00; p = 0.004)和胫骨后动脉(+6.38 s, 1.10-13.61; p = 0.012)均快于多普勒。胫骨前动脉从未被触诊发现,但在所有参与者中都被多普勒发现(确切的McNemar p = 1.91 × 10⁻26)。足背虫PSV的多普勒信度在评分者内(ICC[3.1]: 0.926-0.971)和评分者间(ICC[2.1]: 0.966)均极好,平均偏倚小,一致性限窄。结论:在健康成人中,触诊可以更快地识别足背和胫骨后脉,而只有多普勒才能检测到更深的胫骨前动脉。多普勒衍生的PSV显示出出色的再现性,即使在新手检查。这些发现为方案设计和培训提供了方法层面的证据;在提出任何工作流程建议之前,需要在患者群体中进行验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.60%
发文量
62
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging publishes reports on clinical and experimental research pertinent to human physiology in health and disease. The scope of the Journal is very broad, covering all aspects of the regulatory system in the cardiovascular, renal and pulmonary systems with special emphasis on methodological aspects. The focus for the journal is, however, work that has potential clinical relevance. The Journal also features review articles on recent front-line research within these fields of interest. Covered by the major abstracting services including Current Contents and Science Citation Index, Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging plays an important role in providing effective and productive communication among clinical physiologists world-wide.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书