Search

Background: Diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) are a major complication associated with significant morbidity and mortality. While numerous studies have investigated risk factors for these ulcers in general, few have focused specifically on patients with Neurovascular Complications of Diabetes. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence and risk factors for DFU in this specific population., Methods: We analyzed data from the National Institutes of Health (NIS) database for the years 2017-2019, involving a cohort of 161,834 patients aged over 18 who were diagnosed with neurovascular complications of diabetes. Demographic characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity), hospital characteristics, comorbidities, and other relevant data were included for analysis. A binary logistic regression model was generated to identify independent risk factors for DFU., Results: The prevalence of DFU among patients with neurovascular complications of diabetes was 29.4% during the period from 2017 to 2019. Compared to patients without DFU, those with DFU had longer hospitalization times and higher costs. The multiple regression analysis revealed that Iron-deficiency anemia (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.01-1.11; P =0.019), Hypertension (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03-1.11; P =0.001), Obesity (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.06-1.11; P <0.001), Peripheral vascular disorders (PVD) (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.65-1.74; P <0.001), Osteomyelitis (OR, 7.10; 95% CI, 6.89-7.31; P <0.001), Tinea pedis (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.59-2.26; P <0.001), Sepsis (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.20-1.28; P <0.001), and onychomycosis (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.13-1.42; P <0.001) were independent predictors for DFU in this population., Conclusion: The study found a high prevalence of DFU in patients with neurovascular complications of diabetes. Identifying and addressing risk factors such as deficiency anemia, hypertension, obesity, PVD, infections, and foot conditions may contribute to reducing the prevalence of DFU in this vulnerable population., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Fan, Huang, Liu, Xie, Yang, Liang and Ding.)

Purpose: We first aimed to compare the prognostic difference between the application of Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and Non-enhanced computed tomography (NECT) in hepatocellular carcinoma(HCC) patients with early-stage immediately after ablation. We secondly propose to explore the risk factors for recurrence in patients undergoing CECT, and then develop a nomogram., Patients and Methods: Clinical data were collected from 711 patients who received TACE combined with ablation from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2022, at Beijing Youan Hospital. According to the imaging methods applied after ablation, patients were categorized into the CECT group and the NECT group and then were compared by Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves. Lasso regression is used to screen risk factors for recurrence and the nomogram was plotted. Finally, discrimination, calibration plot, and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to measure the performance of the nomogram., Results: The KM curve indicates that recurrence-free survival (RFS) was longer in the CECT group than in the NECT group (HR =0.759, 95% CI 0.606-0.951, P=0.016). Six variables were selected to construct the nomogram. 1-, 3-, and 5-year area under the curves (AUCs) (0.867, 0.731, 0.773 and 0.896, 0.784, 0.773) of the training and validation cohorts proved the good predictive performance of the nomogram. Calibration curves and DCA curves suggested accuracy and net clinical benefit rates. The nomogram enabled to classify of patients into three groups according to the risk of recurrence: low risk, intermediate risk, and high risk. There was a statistically significant difference in RFS between the two groups in the training and validation cohorts (P<0.001)., Conclusion: We demonstrated that HCC patients who underwent CECT evaluation after ablation had a better prognosis, making this evaluation method highly recommended for guiding clinical management., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2024 Qiao et al.)