4.7 Article

Risk of death following admission to a UK hospital with diabetic ketoacidosis

期刊

DIABETOLOGIA
卷 59, 期 10, 页码 2082-2087

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00125-016-4034-0

关键词

Deprivation; Diabetes; Diabetic ketoacidosis; HbA1c; Mortality; Type 1 diabetes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims/hypothesis The aim of this study was to assess the risk of death during hospital admission for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and, subsequently, following discharge. In addition, we aimed to characterise the risk factors for multiple presentations with DKA. MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of all DKA admissions between 2007 and 2012 at a university teaching hospital. All patients with type 1 diabetes who were admitted with DKA (628 admissions of 298 individuals) were identified by discharge coding. Clinical, biochemical and mortality data were obtained from electronic patient records and national databases. Follow-up continued until the end of 2014. ResultsCompared with patients with a single DKA admission, those with recurrent DKA (more than five episodes) were diagnosed with diabetes at an earlier age (median 14 [interquartile range 9-23] vs 24 [16-34] years, p < 0.001), had higher levels of social deprivation (p = 0.005) and higher HbA(1c) values (103 [89-108] vs 79 [66-96] mmol/mol; 11.6% [10.3-12.0%] vs 9.4% [8.2-10.9%], p < 0.001), and tended to be younger (25 [22-36] vs 31 [23-42] years, p = 0.079). Antidepressant use was greater in those with recurrent DKA compared with those with a single episode (47.5% vs 12.6%, p = 0.001). The inpatient DKA mortality rate was no greater than 0.16%. A single episode of DKA was associated with a 5.2% risk of death (4.1 [2.8-6.0] years of follow-up) compared with 23.4% in those with recurrent DKA admissions (2.4 [2.0-3.8] years of follow-up) (HR 6.18, p = 0.001). Conclusions/interpretation Recurrent DKA is associated with substantial mortality, particularly among young, socially disadvantaged adults with very high HbA(1c) levels.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据