4.7 Article

Substantial reduction in the number of amputations among patients with diabetes: a cohort study over 16 years

Journal

DIABETOLOGIA
Volume 59, Issue 1, Pages 121-129

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00125-015-3781-7

Keywords

Amputation; Diabetes; Diabetic patients

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims/hypothesis The aim of this study was to describe the trends in rates of amputation among individuals with and without diabetes. Methods We studied amputation rates in the County of Funen (approximately 0.5 million residents) during the period 1996-2011. Amputations were identified from the hospital administrative system, diabetes status by linkage with the Danish National Diabetes Register, and mortality and population data by extraction from Statistics Denmark. Amputation rates were analysed using proportional hazard models. We analysed the incidence of the first amputation at each level as well as the incidence of further amputations, subdivided by level of amputation. Results During the period 1996-2011, a total of 2,832 amputations were performed, of which 1,285 were among patients with diabetes and 1,547 among individuals without diabetes. Relative to persons without diabetes, patients with diabetes had an HR for below-ankle amputations (BAAs) of 14.7 for men and 7.5 for women, and for from-ankle-to-knee amputations (BKAs) of 7.6 and 8.4 for men and women, respectively. For above-knee amputations (AKAs) the numbers were 4.0 for men and 3.7 for women. We found an annual reduction in BAA rates among patients with diabetes of 9.8%, and the annual reduction in BKA for patients with diabetes was 15.1%. Conclusions/interpretation The amputation rate in patients with diabetes is still several-fold higher than in persons without diabetes, but the improvements in diabetes care in recent years have resulted in a steady decline in amputation rates among patients with diabetes from this Danish cohort.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available