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

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 36, 期 7, 页码 1961-1966

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc12-2160

关键词

-

资金

  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)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

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