4.0 Article

Short-term predictors of amputation in patients with diabetic foot ulcers

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.dsx.2018.05.007

关键词

Diabetic foot; Foot ulcer; Predictors; Amputation; Risk

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Diabetic foot ulcers are the leading cause of non-traumatic lower extremity amputation. The aim of this study was to establish short-term predictors of lower extremity amputation (LEA) in patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFU). Methods: A retrospective observational study was performed. Patients observed for the first time in a multidisciplinary outpatient diabetic foot clinic during 1-year were reviewed. We examined demographic and clinical data and the occurrence of LEA within 180 days. Bivariate descriptive analysis was performed and three logistic regression models were created to predict short-term LEA. Results: During 1-year 613 patients were observed for the first time in our diabetic foot clinic. Relevant data and eligibility was available from 479 patients with DFU; 38.41%, 40,71% and 20,88% had neuropathic, neuroischemic and ischemic ulcers, respectively. Considering a follow-up of 180 days, amputation occurred in 10.02% (n = 48) of patients: 3.13% (n = 15) major amputation and 6.89% (n = 33) minor amputation. Independent predictors of short-term LEA included moderate to severe infection [OR 5.23 (IC 95% 2.51-10.80; p <0.001)1, previous history of LEA [OR 3.93 (IC 95% 1.81-8.53; p = 0.001)], peripheral arterial disease [OR 3.51 (IC 95% 1.29-9.58; p = 0.014)] and presence of any walking disability [OR 3.35 (IC 95% 1.58-7.13; p = 0.002)]. Conclusion: In DFU patients the risk of LEA at 180 days is associated to moderate to severe infection at the initial presentation, previous history of LEA, peripheral arterial disease and presence of any walking disability. To prevent future amputations these patients should be identified early and managed by a multidisciplinary team. (C) 2018 Diabetes India. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.0
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