Skip to main content

Table 2 Treatment, in-hospital complications and outcome

From: Impact of diabetes on outcome in critical limb ischemia with tissue loss: a large-scaled routine data analysis

 

Rutherford grade 5

Rutherford grade 6

DM+

DM−

All

P

DM+

DM−

All

P

Patients, n (%)

3061 (44.3)

3855 (55.7)

6916 (100.0)

 

4108 (48.8)

4308 (51.2)

8416 (100.0)

 

Angiography (%)

1471 (48.1)

2096 (54.4)

3567 (51.6)

<0.001

1982 (48.2)

2050 (47.6)

4032 (47.9)

0.544

Any revascularization (%)

1377 (45.0)

2141 (55.5)

3518 (50.9)

<0.001

1909 (46.5)

2231 (51.8)

4140 (49.2)

<0.001

EVR (%)

1047 (34.2)

1403 (36.4)

2450 (35.4)

0.059

1272 (31.0)

1209 (28.1)

2481 (29.5)

0.004

Surgery (%)

409 (13.4)

903 (23.4)

1312 (19.0)

<0.001

809 (19.7)

1274 (29.6)

2083 (24.8)

<0.001

TEA (% of all) (% of surgery)

160 (5.2) (39.1)

354 (9.2) (39.2)

514 (7.4) (39.2)

<0.001

287 (7.0) (35.5)

520 (12.1) (40.8)

807 (9.6) (38.7)

<0.001

Bypass (% of all) (% of surgery)

266 (8.7) (65.0)

550 (14.3) (60.9)

816 (11.8) (62.2)

<0.001

532 (13.0) (65.8)

794 (18.4) (62.3)

1326 (15.8) (63.7)

<0.001

ARF (%)

61 (2.0)

66 (1.7)

127 (1.8)

0.388

115 (2.8)

120 (2.8)

235 (2.8)

0.969

AMI (%)

22 (0.7)

36 (0.9)

58 (0.8)

0.330

80 (1.9)

67 (1.6)

147 (1.7)

0.170

Ischemic stroke (%)

14 (0.5)

15 (0.4)

29 (0.4)

0.663

31 (0.8)

32 (0.7)

63 (0.7)

0.950

Infection (%)

1082 (35.3)

905 (23.5)

1987 (28.7)

<0.001

1821 (44.3)

1180 (27.4)

3001 (35.7)

<0.001

Sepsis (%)

150 (4.9)

173 (4.5)

323 (4.7)

0.419

277 (6.7)

214 (5.0)

491 (5.8)

0.001

In-hospital amputation (%)

399 (13.0)

280 (7.3)

679 (9.8)

<0.001

1952 (47.5)

1579 (36.7)

3531 (42.0)

<0.001

In-hospital death (%)

80 (2.6)

154 (4.0)

234 (3.4)

0.002

300 (7.3)

401 (9.3)

701 (8.3)

0.001

  1. Treatment, in-hospital complications and outcome of Rutherford grade 5 and Rutherford grade 6 patients with and without diabetes (DM+/DM−). Data are given as patient numbers and percentages related to the respective subgroup. Statistical significance was tested via contingency table, p values <0.05 are considered significant
  2. Italic values are statistically significant
  3. DM diabetes mellitus; EVR endocascular revascularization; TEA thrombartherectomy; ARF acute renal failure; AMI acute myocardial infarction