Impact of diabetes type on treatment and outcome of patients with peripheral artery disease

23Citations
Citations of this article
60Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: The prevalence of diabetes mellitus and its associated complications such as peripheral artery disease is increasing worldwide. We aimed to explore the distinct impact of type 1 diabetes mellitus and type 2 diabetes mellitus on treatment and on short- and long-term outcome in patients with peripheral artery disease. Methods: Retrospective analysis of anonymized data of hospitalized patients covered by a large German health insurance. Assessment of patient’s characteristics (comorbidities, complications, etc.) and outcome using multivariable Cox regression and Kaplan–Meier curves. Results: Among 41,702 patients with peripheral artery disease, 339 (0.8%) had type 1 diabetes mellitus and 13,151 (31.5%) had type 2 diabetes mellitus. Patients with diabetes mellitus had more comorbidities and complications than patients without diabetes mellitus (p < 0.001). Type 1 diabetes mellitus patients exhibited the highest risk for limb amputation at 4-year follow-up (44.6% vs 35.1%, p < 0.001), while type 2 diabetes mellitus patients had higher mortality than type 1 diabetes mellitus (43.6% vs 31.0%, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Although the fraction of type 1 diabetes mellitus among patients with peripheral artery disease and diabetes mellitus is low, it represents a subset of patients being at particular high risk for limb amputation. Research focused on elaborating the determinants of limb amputation and mortality in peripheral artery disease patients with diabetes mellitus is warranted to improve the poor prognosis of these patients.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Richter, L., Freisinger, E., Lüders, F., Gebauer, K., Meyborg, M., & Malyar, N. M. (2018). Impact of diabetes type on treatment and outcome of patients with peripheral artery disease. Diabetes and Vascular Disease Research, 15(6), 504–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/1479164118793986

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free