4.7 Article

Lack of Effectiveness of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy for the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Ulcer and the Prevention of Amputation A cohort study

Journal

DIABETES CARE
Volume 36, Issue 7, Pages 1961-1966

Publisher

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc12-2160

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) [R01-HS018437]
  2. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) [R01-DK094260]
  3. National Healing Corporation (NHC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE-Hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) is a device that is used to treat foot ulcers. The study goal was to compare the effectiveness of HBO with other conventional therapies administered in a wound care network for the treatment of a diabetic foot ulcer and prevention of lower-extremity amputation. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-This was a longitudinal observational cohort study. To address treatment selection bias, we used propensity scores to determine the propensity that an individual was selected to receive HBO. RESULTS-We studied 6,259 individuals with diabetes, adequate lower limb arterial perfusion, and foot ulcer extending through the dermis, representing 767,060 person-days of wound care. In the propensity score adjusted models, individuals receiving HBO were less likely to have healing of their foot ulcer (hazard ratio 0.68 [95% CI 0.63-0.73]) and more likely to have an amputation (2.37 [1.84-3.04]). Additional analyses, including the use of an instrumental variable, were conducted to assess the robustness of our results to unmeasured confounding. HBO was not found to improve the likelihood that a wound might heal or to decrease the likelihood of amputation in any of these analyses. CONCLUSIONS-Use of HBO neither improved the likelihood that a wound would heal nor prevented amputation in a cohort of patients defined by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services eligibility criteria. The usefulness of HBO in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers needs to be reevaluated.

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