We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Effect of Intensive Glycemic Control on Risk of Lower Extremity Amputation.
Journal of the American College of Surgeons 2018 December
BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus is a major risk factor for peripheral arterial disease and lower extremity amputation (LEA). We evaluated the effects of intensive glucose control (IGC) on risk of LEA in patients with type 2 diabetes during a randomized-controlled multicenter trial.
STUDY DESIGN: The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial randomized patients with type 2 diabetes to IGC (HbA1c target < 6.0%) or standard glycemic control (SGC; HbA1c target 7.0% to 7.9%). Using analysis of mean HbA1c, we examined relationships between glycemic control and incident/recurrent LEA during the clinical trial/follow-up.
RESULTS: Mean post-randomization HbA1c over the course of the trial and post-trial follow-up was 7.3% ± 0.9% (6.8% ± 0.8% in the IGC arm, 7.7% ± 0.7% in the SGC arm). There were 124 participants who had at least 1 LEA during the study period; 73 were randomized to the SGC arm and 51 to the IGC arm (p = 0.049). Randomization to IGC was associated with decreased LEA rate (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.483 to 0.987, p = 0.042). In multivariable models, mean HbA1c was a powerful predictor of LEA (HR 2.07 per 1% increase in HbA1c, 95% CI 1.67 to 2.57, p < 0.0001). Post-randomization mean HbA1c remained a strong predictor of LEA after controlling for other important covariates and competing risk of death (HR 1.94 per 1% increase in HbA1c, 95% CI 1.52 to 2.46, p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes, IGC was associated with a reduction in the risk for LEA. After 3.7 years of IGC, there was an enduring protective effect against LEA. Improved glycemic control was a strong predictor of decreased risk for subsequent LEA. This study suggests that tight glycemic control, even over a short time period, has potential to reduce risk of limb loss.
STUDY DESIGN: The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial randomized patients with type 2 diabetes to IGC (HbA1c target < 6.0%) or standard glycemic control (SGC; HbA1c target 7.0% to 7.9%). Using analysis of mean HbA1c, we examined relationships between glycemic control and incident/recurrent LEA during the clinical trial/follow-up.
RESULTS: Mean post-randomization HbA1c over the course of the trial and post-trial follow-up was 7.3% ± 0.9% (6.8% ± 0.8% in the IGC arm, 7.7% ± 0.7% in the SGC arm). There were 124 participants who had at least 1 LEA during the study period; 73 were randomized to the SGC arm and 51 to the IGC arm (p = 0.049). Randomization to IGC was associated with decreased LEA rate (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.483 to 0.987, p = 0.042). In multivariable models, mean HbA1c was a powerful predictor of LEA (HR 2.07 per 1% increase in HbA1c, 95% CI 1.67 to 2.57, p < 0.0001). Post-randomization mean HbA1c remained a strong predictor of LEA after controlling for other important covariates and competing risk of death (HR 1.94 per 1% increase in HbA1c, 95% CI 1.52 to 2.46, p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes, IGC was associated with a reduction in the risk for LEA. After 3.7 years of IGC, there was an enduring protective effect against LEA. Improved glycemic control was a strong predictor of decreased risk for subsequent LEA. This study suggests that tight glycemic control, even over a short time period, has potential to reduce risk of limb loss.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app