Federico Rolando Bonanni, Marco Meloni, Martina Salvi, Ermanno Bellizzi, Aurora Buccolini, Luigi Uccioli, Valeria Ruotolo, Aikaterini Andreadi, Alfonso Bellia, Davide Lauro
{"title":"Six-month Outcomes of Patients Admitted for Diabetic Foot Attack.","authors":"Federico Rolando Bonanni, Marco Meloni, Martina Salvi, Ermanno Bellizzi, Aurora Buccolini, Luigi Uccioli, Valeria Ruotolo, Aikaterini Andreadi, Alfonso Bellia, Davide Lauro","doi":"10.1177/15347346251365832","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The study aimed to evaluate the mid-term outcomes of patients admitted for a diabetic foot attack (DFA). It is a retrospective observational study including a population of patients admitted for diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) into a specialized multidisciplinary diabetic foot service. Based on the type of hospital admission (emergency or elective), patients were divided into two groups: those with DFA and those without DFA (chronic diabetic foot, CDF). The DFA was considered in case of ischemia (acute or chronic), infection and Charcot foot requiring urgent hospitalization. Once discharged, patients were regularly followed as outpatients with the following six-month outcomes: healing; major amputation; mortality; hospital readmission; non-fatal major adverse limb and cardiovascular events (MALCE) including nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal stroke, and limb ischemia requiring revascularization. Overall, 141 patients were included. The mean age was 70 ± 12 years, most patients were male (76.6%) and had type 2 diabetes (93.6%) with a mean duration of 22 ± 13 years; 81 (57.4%) patients presented DFA while 60 (42.6%) presented CDF. No cases of admitted Charcot foot were recorded. The DFA group reported 81.5% cases of severe/moderate infections, while the CDF group presented 50% of mild infections. The DFA group reported higher HbA1c values (67 ± 22 vs 56 ± 14 mmol/mol, p = 0.0008) and more cases of first assessment for DFUs (59.3 vs 13.3%, p < 0.0001) when compared to the CDF group. The six-month follow-up outcomes for DFA and CDF were: healing (65.4 vs 60.0%, p = 0.3); major amputation (4.9 vs 1.7%, p = 0.2); mortality (8.6 vs 11.7%, p = 0.5); hospital readmission (27.2 vs 26.7%, p = 0.8); non-fatal MALCE (9.9 vs 23.3%, p = 0.1). Six-month outcomes did not show significant differences between the DFA and CDF groups in terms of healing, major amputation, mortality, readmission, and non-fatal MALCE. Adequate management of DFA seems to ensure favourable mid-term outcomes, even if compared to patients with CDF.</p>","PeriodicalId":94229,"journal":{"name":"The international journal of lower extremity wounds","volume":" ","pages":"15347346251365832"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The international journal of lower extremity wounds","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15347346251365832","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The study aimed to evaluate the mid-term outcomes of patients admitted for a diabetic foot attack (DFA). It is a retrospective observational study including a population of patients admitted for diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) into a specialized multidisciplinary diabetic foot service. Based on the type of hospital admission (emergency or elective), patients were divided into two groups: those with DFA and those without DFA (chronic diabetic foot, CDF). The DFA was considered in case of ischemia (acute or chronic), infection and Charcot foot requiring urgent hospitalization. Once discharged, patients were regularly followed as outpatients with the following six-month outcomes: healing; major amputation; mortality; hospital readmission; non-fatal major adverse limb and cardiovascular events (MALCE) including nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal stroke, and limb ischemia requiring revascularization. Overall, 141 patients were included. The mean age was 70 ± 12 years, most patients were male (76.6%) and had type 2 diabetes (93.6%) with a mean duration of 22 ± 13 years; 81 (57.4%) patients presented DFA while 60 (42.6%) presented CDF. No cases of admitted Charcot foot were recorded. The DFA group reported 81.5% cases of severe/moderate infections, while the CDF group presented 50% of mild infections. The DFA group reported higher HbA1c values (67 ± 22 vs 56 ± 14 mmol/mol, p = 0.0008) and more cases of first assessment for DFUs (59.3 vs 13.3%, p < 0.0001) when compared to the CDF group. The six-month follow-up outcomes for DFA and CDF were: healing (65.4 vs 60.0%, p = 0.3); major amputation (4.9 vs 1.7%, p = 0.2); mortality (8.6 vs 11.7%, p = 0.5); hospital readmission (27.2 vs 26.7%, p = 0.8); non-fatal MALCE (9.9 vs 23.3%, p = 0.1). Six-month outcomes did not show significant differences between the DFA and CDF groups in terms of healing, major amputation, mortality, readmission, and non-fatal MALCE. Adequate management of DFA seems to ensure favourable mid-term outcomes, even if compared to patients with CDF.
该研究旨在评估因糖尿病足发作(DFA)入院患者的中期预后。这是一项回顾性观察性研究,包括一群因糖尿病足溃疡(DFUs)进入专门的多学科糖尿病足服务的患者。根据住院类型(急诊或择期),将患者分为两组:有DFA的患者和无DFA的患者(慢性糖尿病足,CDF)。在缺血(急性或慢性)、感染和沙科足需要紧急住院的情况下,考虑DFA。出院后,患者作为门诊患者定期随访,六个月的结果如下:愈合;主要截肢;死亡率;再次入院;非致死性重大肢体和心血管不良事件(MALCE),包括非致死性心肌梗死(MI)、非致死性中风和需要血运重建的肢体缺血。总共纳入141例患者。平均年龄70±12岁,男性占76.6%,2型糖尿病占93.6%,平均病程22±13年;DFA 81例(57.4%),CDF 60例(42.6%)。没有确诊的夏可足病例记录。DFA组报告了81.5%的重度/中度感染病例,而CDF组报告了50%的轻度感染病例。DFA组报告了更高的HbA1c值(67±22 vs 56±14 mmol/mol, p = 0.0008)和更多的DFA首次评估病例(59.3 vs 13.3%, p = 0.0008)