4.7 Article

Sarcopenia is independently associated with diabetic foot disease

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-08972-1

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Key Clinical Specialties Construction Program of China
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81370954, 81670785]
  3. Fundamental Science & Advanced Technology Research of Chongqing [cstc2015jcyjBX0096]
  4. Chongqing Science and Technology Committee Innovation Project [cstc2016shms-ztzx1003]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to investigate the association of sarcopenia and diabetic foot disease (DFD) in a cross-sectional study. Body composition was assessed using dual-energy X-ray-absorptiometry (DXA) among 1105 patients with type 2 diabetes (120 patients with newly diagnosed DFD [DFD duration less than 3 months]). Severity of DFD was assessed, referring to foot ulcers, Wagner grade and the percentage of amputation. Skeletal muscle index (SMI) was calculated, and sarcopenia was defined as SMI less than 7.0 kg/m(2) (in men) or 5.4 kg/m(2) (in women). SMI was significantly decreased in patients with DFD compared to patients without (6.79 +/- 1.20 vs. 7.21 +/- 1.05 kg/m(2), P < 0.001). The percentage of sarcopenia in DFD patients was more than double than those without DFD (35.3% vs. 16.4%, P < 0.001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that sarcopenia was independently associated with DFD (OR 2.05[ 95% CI 1.15,3.89], P = 0.027) after controlling confounders including age, diabetic duration and diabetic chronic complications. In DFD group, patients with sarcopenia exhibited more foot ulcers, higher Wagner grade and greater percentage of amputation compared to patients without sarcopenia. We conclude that sarcopenia is independently associated with DFD. Worse prognosis is seen in patients with DFD accompanied by sarcopenia.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available