Dataset Information

Three Years Survival and Factor Predicting Amputation or Mortality in Patients with High Risk for Diabetic Foot Ulcer in Fatmawati General Hospital, Jakarta.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Diabetic foot is one of major complication in diabetes patients with unfavorable outcome. Survival study in outpatients is limited and factors related are inconsistent. Survival and its modifiable risk factors should be identified early since the foot at risk status to reduce amputation/mortality in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Objective

The aims of this study were to investigate survival probability for amputation or mortality, compare different ulcer risk classification, and figure out the relation of status of ulcer risk, age, gender, diabetes duration, body mass index, fasting plasma glucose, HbA1C, and LDL with amputation or mortality.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study of 487 T2DM subjects who visited internal medicine outpatient clinic in Fatmawati General Hospital since January-December 2016. Status of ulcer risk and risk factors were extracted from medical record and lower-extremity amputation or mortality was observed in 3 years from baseline.

Result

Three years overall survival is 85.7% (SE 0.17). Patients with high risk for foot ulcer have survival probability of 80.2% (SE 0.027), which is lower compared to non-high risk for foot ulcer with survival probability of 91.8% (SE 0.019). Patients with high risk for foot ulcer (aHR 2.386 [95% CI 1.356-4.20]; P = .003), aged ≥60 years old (aHR 2.051 [95% CI 1.173-3.585]; P = .012), and HbA1C ≥7% (aHR 2.022 [95% CI 1.067-3.830]; P = .031) were independently associated with amputation or mortality.

Conclusion

T2DM patients with high risk for foot ulcer have lower survival probability and higher risk for amputation or mortality in 3 years compared to patients with non-high risk for foot ulcer. Status of ulcer risk, age ≥60 years, and HbA1C ≥7% were associated with amputation or mortality in 3 years observation.

SUBMITTER: Yunir E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8744153 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:IntroductionAccurate identification of pathogens, rather than colonising bacteria, is a prerequisite for targeted antibiotic therapy to ensure optimal patient outcome in wounds, such as diabetic foot ulcers. Wound swabs are the easiest and most commonly used sampling technique but most published guidelines recommend instead removal of a tissue sample from the wound bed, which is a more complex process. The aim of this study was to assess the concordance between culture results from wound swabs and tissue samples in patients with suspected diabetic foot infection.Methods and analysisPatients with a diabetic foot ulcer that is thought to be infected are being recruited from 25 sites across England in a cross-sectional study. The coprimary endpoints for the study are agreement between the two sampling techniques for three microbiological parameters: reported presence of likely isolates identified by the UK Health Protection Agency; resistance of isolates to usual antibiotic agents; and, the number of isolates reported per specimen. Secondary endpoints include appropriateness of the empiric antibiotic therapy prescribed and adverse events. Enrolling 400 patients will provide 80% power to detect a difference of 3% in the reported presence of an organism, assuming organism prevalence of 10%, discordance of 5% and a two-sided test at the 5% level of significance. Assumed overall prevalence is based on relatively uncommon organisms such as Pseudomonas. We will define acceptable agreement as ?>0.6.Ethics and disseminationConcordance in diabetic foot ulcer infection (CODIFI) will produce robust data to evaluate the two most commonly used sampling techniques employed for patients with a diabetic foot infection. This will help determine whether or not it is important that clinicians take tissue samples rather than swabs in infected ulcers. This study has been approved by the Sheffield NRES Committee (Ref: 11/YH/0078) and all sites have obtained local approvals prior starting recruitment.Study registrationNRES Ref: 11/YH/0078, UKCRN ID: 10440, ISRCTN: 52608451.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Diabetes mellitus is a major global health issue with a growing prevalence. In this context, the number of diabetic complications is also on the rise, such as diabetic foot ulcers (DFU), which are closely linked to the risk of lower extremity amputation (LEA). Statistical prediction tools may support clinicians to initiate early tertiary LEA prevention for DFU patients. Thus, we designed Bayesian prediction models, as they produce transparent decision rules, quantify uncertainty intuitively and acknowledge prior available scientific knowledge. METHOD:A logistic regression using observational collected according to the standardised PEDIS classification was utilised to compute the six-month amputation risk of DFU patients for two types of LEA: 1.) any-amputation and 2.) major-amputation. Being able to incorporate information which is available before the analysis, the Bayesian models were fitted following a twofold strategy. First, the designed prediction models waive the available information and, second, we incorporated the a priori available scientific knowledge into our models. Then, we evaluated each model with respect to the effect of the predictors and validity of the models. Next, we compared the performance of both models with respect to the incorporation of prior knowledge. RESULTS:This study included 237 patients. The mean age was 65.9 (SD 12.3), and 83.5% were male. Concerning the outcome, 31.6% underwent any- and 12.2% underwent a major-amputation procedure. The risk factors of perfusion, ulcer extent and depth revealed an impact on the outcomes, whereas the infection status and sensation did not. The major-amputation model using prior information outperformed the uninformed counterpart (AUC 0.765 vs AUC 0.790, Cohen's d 2.21). In contrast, the models predicting any-amputation performed similarly (0.793 vs 0.790, Cohen's d 0.22). CONCLUSIONS:Both of the Bayesian amputation risk models showed acceptable prognostic values, and the major-amputation model benefitted from incorporating a priori information from a previous study. Thus, PEDIS serves as a valid foundation for a clinical decision support tool for the prediction of the amputation risk in DFU patients. Furthermore, we demonstrated the use of the available prior scientific information within a Bayesian framework to establish chains of knowledge.