Diagnostic Performance of Atherogenic Index of Plasma for Predicting Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis with Peripheral Artery Disease

Background: This study aims to assess the atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) diagnostic value in detecting diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) among patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted on 80 patients with DFUs and suspected DFO between January 20...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Flores Escobar, Jhony Sebastián, López Moral, Mateo, García-Madrid Martín De Almagro, Marta, Álvaro Afonso, Francisco Javier, Tardaguila García, Aroa, Lázaro Martínez, José Luis
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2024
País:España
Institución:Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM)
Repositorio:Docta Complutense
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:docta.ucm.es:20.500.14352/118919
Acceso en línea:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/118919
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:616.718.7/.9
diabetic foot
diabetic foot infection
diabetic foot osteomyelitis
atherogenic index of plasma
Podología
3299 Otras Especialidades Médicas
Descripción
Sumario:Background: This study aims to assess the atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) diagnostic value in detecting diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) among patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted on 80 patients with DFUs and suspected DFO between January 2022 and December 2023. The primary outcome measures included the diagnosis of DFO, determined by positive microbiological analysis results from bone samples and its correlation with the AIP. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were utilized to select the optimal diagnostic cut-off points for AIP and post hoc analysis was performed to evaluate the difference in the AIP for diagnosing DFO in patients with and without peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Results: The diagnostic potential for DFO in PAD patients of AIP-1 (Log TC/HDL) showed an AUC of 0.914 (p < 0.001 [0.832–0.996]), leading to a sensitivity of 83% and a specificity of 85%. By contrast, AIP-2 (Log TG/HDL) demonstrated a slightly lower AUC of 0.841 (p < 0.001 [0.716–0.967]), leading to a sensitivity of 76% and a specificity of 74%. Conclusions: The AIP tool, with its ideal blend of sensitivity and specificity, aids in predicting DFO effectively. Therefore, clinicians should consider using AIP for patients suffering from PAD and associated DFO.