Dataset Information

Risk of diabetic foot ulcer and its associated factors among Bangladeshi subjects: a multicentric cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the risk of diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) and find out its associated factors among subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D) of Bangladesh.

Design, setting and participants

This cross-sectional study recruited 1200 subjects with T2D who visited 16 centres of Health Care Development Project run by Diabetic Association of Bangladesh.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Risk of DFU was assessed using a modified version of International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) Risk Classification System. The modified system was based on five parameters, namely peripheral neuropathy (PN), peripheral arterial diseases (PAD), deformity, ulcer history and amputation. The risks were categorised as group 0 (no PN, no PAD), group 1 (PN, no PAD and no deformity), group 2A (PN and deformity, no PAD), group 2B (PAD), group 3A (ulcer history) and group 3B (amputation). The associated factors of DFU risk were determined using multinomial logistic regression for each risk category separately.

Results

Overall, 44.5% of the subjects were found 'at risk' of DFU. This risk was higher among men (45.6%) than women and among those who lived in rural areas (45.5%) as compared with the urban population. According to IWGDF categories, the risk was distributed as 55.5%, 4.2%, 11.6%, 0.3%, 20.6% and 7.9% for group 0, group 1, group 2A, group 2B, group 3A and group 3B, respectively. The associated factors of DFU (OR >1) were age ≥50 years, rural area, low economic status, insulin use, history of trauma, diabetic retinopathy and diabetic nephropathy.

Conclusion

A significant number of the subjects with T2D under study were at risk of DFU, which demands an effective screening programme to reduce DFU-related morbidity and mortality.

SUBMITTER: Banik PC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7050319 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Diabetic foot is a serious condition in patients with a long lasting diabetes mellitus. Diabetic foot treated improperly may lead not only to delayed ulceration healing, generalized inflammation, unnecessary surgical intervention, but also to the lower limb amputation. The aim of this study was to compare diabetic foot risk factors in population with type 2 diabetes and risk factors for diabetes in healthy subjects.The study included 900 subjects: 145 with diabetic foot, 293 with type 2 diabetes without diabetic foot and 462 healthy controls matched in terms of mean age, gender structure and cardiovascular diseases absence. Study was conducted in Gastroenterology and Metabolic Diseases Department, Medical University of Warsaw, Poland. In statistical analysis a logistic regression model, U Mann-Whitney's and t-Student test were used.The binomial logit models analysis showed that the risk of diabetic foot in patients with type 2 diabetes was decreased by patient's age (odds ratio [OR] = 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-0.96; p = 0.00001) and hyperlipidaemia (OR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.36-0.81; p = 0.01). In contrast, male gender (OR = 2.83; 95% CI: 1.86-4.28; p = 0.00001) diabetes duration (OR = 1.04; 95% CI: 1.03-1.06; p = 0.0003), weight (OR = 1.04; 95% CI: 1.03-1.06; p = 0.00001), height (OR = 1.08; 95% CI: 1.05-1.11; p = 0.00001) and waist circumference (OR = 1.028; 95% CI: 1.007-1.050; p = 0.006) increase the risk of diabetic foot. The onset of type 2 diabetes in healthy subjects was increased by weight (OR = 1.035; 95% CI: 1.024-1.046; p = 0.00001), WC (OR = 1.075; 95% CI: 1.055-1.096; p = 00001), hip circumference (OR = 1.03; 95% CI: 1.01-1.05; p = 0.005), overweight defined with body mass index (BMI) above 24,9 kg/m(2) (OR = 2.49; 95% CI: 1.77-3.51; p = 0.00001) and hyperlipidaemia (OR = 3.53; 95% CI: 2.57-4.84; p = 0.00001).Risk factors for Type 2 diabetes and diabetic foot are only partially common. Study proved that patients who are prone to developing diabetic foot experience different risk factors than patients who are at risk of diabetes. Identification of relationship between diabetic foot and diabetes risk factors in appropriate groups may help clinicians to focus on certain factors in diabetic foot prevention.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To determine the extent of agreement and patterns of disagreement between wound swab and tissue samples in patients with an infected diabetic foot ulcer (DFU). DESIGN:Multicentre, prospective, cross-sectional study. SETTING:Primary and secondary care foot ulcer/diabetic outpatient clinics and hospital wards across England. PARTICIPANTS:Inclusion criteria: consenting patients aged ?18 years; diabetes mellitus; suspected infected DFU. EXCLUSION CRITERIA:clinically inappropriate to take either sample. INTERVENTIONS:Wound swab obtained using Levine's technique; tissue samples collected using a sterile dermal curette or scalpel. OUTCOME MEASURES:Coprimary: reported presence, and number, of pathogens per sample; prevalence of resistance to antimicrobials among likely pathogens. Secondary: recommended change in antibiotic therapy based on blinded clinical review; adverse events; sampling costs. RESULTS:400 consenting patients (79% male) from 25 centres.Most prevalent reported pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (43.8%), Streptococcus (16.7%) and other aerobic Gram-positive cocci (70.6%). At least one potential pathogen was reported from 70.1% of wound swab and 86.1% of tissue samples. Pathogen results differed between sampling methods in 58% of patients, with more pathogens and fewer contaminants reported from tissue specimens.The majority of pathogens were reported significantly more frequently in tissue than wound swab samples (P<0.01), with equal disagreement for S. aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Blinded clinicians more often recommended a change in antibiotic regimen based on tissue compared with wound swab results (increase of 8.9%, 95%?CI 2.65% to 15.3%). Ulcer pain and bleeding occurred more often after tissue collection versus wound swabs (pain: 9.3%, 1.3%; bleeding: 6.8%, 1.5%, respectively). CONCLUSION:Reports of tissue samples more frequently identified pathogens, and less frequently identified non-pathogens compared with wound swab samples. Blinded clinicians more often recommended changes in antibiotic therapy based on tissue compared with wound swab specimens. Further research is needed to determine the effect of the additional information provided by tissue samples. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN52608451.

Project description:PurposeWe aimed to investigate the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in patients with diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) and elucidate the association between DR and DFU severities and their shared risk factors.MethodsA retrospective review was conducted on DFU patients who underwent ophthalmic and vascular examinations within 6 months; 100 type 2 diabetic patients with DFU were included. The medical records of 2496 type 2 diabetic patients without DFU served as control data. DR prevalence and severity were assessed in DFU patients. DFU patients were compared with the control group regarding each clinical variable. Additionally, DFU patients were divided into two groups according to DR severity and compared.ResultsOut of 100 DFU patients, 90 patients (90%) had DR and 55 (55%) had proliferative DR (PDR). There was no significant association between DR and DFU severities (R = 0.034, p = 0.734). A multivariable analysis comparing type 2 diabetic patients with and without DFUs showed that the presence of DR [OR, 226.12; 95% confidence interval (CI), 58.07-880.49; p < 0.001] and proliferative DR [OR, 306.27; 95% CI, 64.35-1457.80; p < 0.001), higher HbA1c (%, OR, 1.97, 95% CI, 1.46-2.67; p < 0.001), higher serum creatinine (mg/dL, OR, 1.62, 95% CI, 1.06-2.50; p = 0.027), older age (years, OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.06-1.17; p < 0.001), higher pulse pressure (mmHg, OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.06; p = 0.025), lower cholesterol (mg/dL, OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-0.97; p < 0.001), lower BMI (kg/m2, OR, 0.87, 95% CI, 0.75-1.00; p = 0.044) and lower hematocrit (%, OR, 0.80, 95% CI, 0.74-0.87; p < 0.001) were associated with DFUs. In a subgroup analysis of DFU patients, the PDR group had a longer duration of diabetes mellitus, higher serum BUN, and higher serum creatinine than the non-PDR group. In the multivariable analysis, only higher serum creatinine was associated with PDR in DFU patients (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.05-1.78; p = 0.021).ConclusionsDiabetic retinopathy is prevalent in patients with DFU and about half of DFU patients had PDR. No significant association was found in terms of the severity of these two diabetic complications. To prevent blindness, patients with DFU, and especially those with high serum creatinine, should undergo retinal examinations for timely PDR diagnosis and management.