4.7 Article

Amputation-free survival in 17,353 people at high risk for foot ulceration in diabetes: a national observational study

期刊

DIABETOLOGIA
卷 61, 期 12, 页码 2590-2597

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00125-018-4723-y

关键词

Amputation; Diabetes; Foot; Mortality; Ulcer

资金

  1. NHS Tayside research endowments

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims/hypothesisOur aim was to investigate amputation-free survival in people at high risk for foot ulceration in diabetes (high-risk foot'), and to compare different subcategories of high-risk foot.MethodsOverall, 17,353 people with diabetes and high-risk foot from January 2008 to December 2011 were identified from the Scotland-wide diabetes register (Scottish Care Information-Diabetes: N=247,278). Participants were followed-up for up to 2years from baseline and were categorised into three groups: (1) those with no previous ulcer, (2) those with an active ulcer or (3) those with a healed previous ulcer. Participants with prior minor or major amputation were excluded. Accelerated failure time models were used to compare amputation-free survival up to 2years between the three exposure groups.ResultsThe 2year amputation-free survival rate in all people with diabetes with high-risk foot was 84.5%. In this study group, 270 people (10.0%) had an amputation and 2424 (90.0%) died during the 2year follow-up period. People who had active and healed previous ulcers at baseline had significantly lower 2year amputation-free survival compared with those who had no previous ulcer (both p<0.0001). The percentage of people who died within 2years for those with healed ulcer, active ulcer or no baseline ulcer was 22.8%, 16% and 12.1%, respectively.Conclusions/interpretationIn people judged to be at high risk of foot ulceration, the risk of death was up to nine times the risk of amputation. Death rates were higher for people with diabetes who had healed ulcers than for those with active ulcers. However, people with active ulcers had the highest risk of amputation.

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