RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the feasibility and diagnostic performance of ultrasound-guided bone biopsies at the bedside of diabetic patients admitted for suspected foot osteitis not requiring surgery. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this retrospective monocentric study, we compared the performance of ultrasound-guided (n = 29 consecutive patients, Dec.2020-Oct.2022) versus surgical (n = 24 consecutive patients, Jan.2018-Nov.2020) bone biopsies at confirming or ruling out diabetic foot osteitis (primary outcome). RESULTS: Patient characteristics were similar in the two intervention groups, including arteritis prevalence (62.3 %), SINBAD score, and wound location (phalanges 36 %, metatarsus 43 %, and calcaneus 21 %). However, the ultrasound-guided group was older (67 ± 11 versus 60 ± 13 years respectively, P = 0.047) and had more type 2 diabetes (97 % versus 75 %, P = 0.038). Diagnostic performance (i.e., capacity to confirm or rule out suspected osteitis) was similar for ultrasound-guided (28/29 cases: 25 confirmations, 3 invalidations) and surgical (24 confirmations/24) biopsies, P = 0.358. No biopsy-related side effect or complication was observed for either intervention, even for patients on antiaggregation and/or anticoagulation therapy. The mean (± standard deviation) time necessary to perform the biopsy was shorter in the ultrasound-guided group (2.6 ± 3.0 versus 7.2 ± 5.8 days, respectively, P < 0.001) and wound evolution at three months was more favorable (83.3 versus 41.2 %, P = 0.005) (94.4 % versus 66.7 %, respectively, patients with new surgical procedure within six months excluded; P = 0.055). Even though not statistically significant, healing rates in terms of wound and osteitis at six months were also better in the ultrasound-guided group (wound: 40.9 % versus 36.8 %; P = 0.790, and osteitis: 81.8 vs 55.6 % P = 0.071). CONCLUSION: In diabetic patients with suspected foot osteitis not requiring surgery, bedside ultrasound-guided bone biopsies may constitute a promising alternative to surgical biopsies. This intervention provided excellent tolerance and microbiological documentation, short lead-times, and more favorable wound prognosis.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate a selective screening strategy for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) based on the presence of risk factors: BMI ≥25 kg/m(2), age ≥35 years, family history of diabetes, personal history of GDM, or birth of a child with macrosomia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Of 20,630 deliveries between 2002 and 2010, we selected 18,775 deliveries in women with no known diabetes and for whom all risk factors were known. GDM was universally screened and defined as fasting plasma glucose level ≥5.3 mmol/L and/or 2-h postload (75 g) glucose level ≥7.8 mmol/L. RESULTS: The prevalence of at least one risk factor has increased since 2002 (P < 0.001) from 51.7 to 61.5%, with no change in the GDM prevalence (mean 14.4%, intention to screen). At least one risk factor was present in 58.5% of women who represented 65.3% of all those with GDM. The presence of risk factors was significantly associated with GDM (odds ratio 1.4 [95% CI 1.3-1.5], P < 0.001) and with GDM-related events (preeclampsia/large for gestational age/dystocia) (P < 0.001) with the following incidences: no GDM/no risk factor 8.8%, no GDM/risk factor 11.1%, GDM/no risk factor 16.7%, and GDM/risk factor 18.2%. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of risk factors increased during the last decade. This condition is predictive of GDM and GDM-related events. However, a selective screening would lead to missing one-third of the women with GDM who, even without risk factors, had more events than women without GDM. Therefore, these data stand against the present selective screening currently proposed in the French guidelines.
