Skip to main content
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Follow ada on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Visit ada on Facebook
Diabetes Care

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcast
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Diabetes Care
  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcast
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
Epidemiology/Health Services/Psychosocial Research

Age and Sex May Significantly Interact With Diabetes on the Risks of Lower-Extremity Amputation and Peripheral Revascularization Procedures

Evidence from a cohort of a half-million diabetic patients

  1. Hua-Fen Chen, MD, MSC12,
  2. Ching-An Ho, MD3 and
  3. Chung-Yi Li, PHD2
  1. 1Department of Endocrinology, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, Taipei Hsien, Taiwan
  2. 2Department of Public Health, College of Medicine, Fu Jen Catholic University, Taipei Hsien, Taiwan
  3. 3Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Catholic Mercy Hospital, Hsinchu Hsien, Taiwan
  1. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Chung-Yi Li, Department of Public Health, College of Medicine, Fu Jen Catholic University, 510 Chung Cheng Rd., Hsinchuang, Taipei Hsien, 242 Taiwan. E-mail: chungyi{at}mails.fju.edu.tw
Diabetes Care 2006 Nov; 29(11): 2409-2414. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc06-1343
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Evidence from a cohort of a half-million diabetic patients

Abstract

OBJECTIVE—Using the National Health Insurance claim data, we prospectively investigated the age- and sex-specific incidence density and relative hazards of nontraumatic lower-extremity amputation (LEA) and peripheral revascularization procedure (PRP) of the diabetic population in Taiwan.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—A total of 500,868 diabetic patients and 500,248 age- and sex-matched control subjects, selected from the ambulatory care claim (1997) and the registry for beneficiaries, respectively, were linked to inpatient claims (1997–2002) to identify hospitalizations due to nontraumatic LEA and PRP. Incidence density was calculated under the Poisson assumption, and the Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess the cumulative event rates over a 6-year follow-up period. We also evaluated the age- and sex-specific relative hazards of nontraumatic LEA and PRP in relation to diabetes with Cox proportional hazard regression model adjusted for demographics and regional areas.

RESULTS—The estimated incidence density of nontraumatic LEA and PRP for diabetic men was 410.3 and 317.0 per 100,000 patient-years, respectively. The corresponding data for diabetic women were relatively low at 115.2 and 86.0 per 100,000 patient-years. Compared with control subjects with the same age and sex, diabetic patients consistently suffered from significantly elevated relative hazards of nontraumatic LEA. Young and female patients were especially vulnerable to experience increased risks of nontraumatic LEA, but such effect modification by age and sex was less apparent for PRP.

CONCLUSIONS—Multidisciplinary diabetes foot care systems, including the provision of revascularization procedures, should be further enforced to reduce subsequent risks of nontraumatic LEA, especially in young and female diabetic patients.

  • BNHI, Bureau of National Health Insurance
  • LEA, lower-extremity amputation
  • NHI, National Health Insurance
  • NHRI, National Health Research Institute
  • PIN, personal identification number
  • PRP, peripheral revascularization procedure

Chronic hyperglycemia is a risk factor for peripheral vascular disease (1), and the severe form of diabetic foot disease usually leads to lower-extremity amputation (LEA). Diabetes increased the risk of LEA by a magnitude of 10–28 times (2–6), but Holstein et al. (7) reported that lower-extremity revascularization procedure was observed to be a successful therapy for limb salvage in diabetic patients with critical limb ischemia. Nevertheless, the relative hazard of peripheral revascularization procedure (PRP) associated with diabetes has rarely been investigated in previous studies. In Taiwan, most of the reports on diabetes-related amputation were either hospital- (8) or community- (9) based rather than population-based studies. The objective of this study was to use a nationally representative diabetic cohort selected from the National Health Insurance (NHI) database to estimate the incidence density and relative hazards of nontraumatic LEA and PRP according to various age and sex stratifications.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—

We used a registry-based prospective design to estimate the incidence density and relative risk of nontraumatic LEA and PRP among the diabetic population in Taiwan. A universal NHI program has been implemented in Taiwan since March 1995. Some 96% of the total Taiwanese population has enrolled in the NHI program (10), and, by the end of 1996, the Bureau of NHI (BNHI) had contracted with 97% of hospitals and clinics throughout the nation (11). The BNHI accumulates all administrative and claims data for Taiwan. The National Health Research Institute (NHRI) cooperates with the BNHI to establish an NHI research database. The NHRI safeguards the privacy and confidentiality of all beneficiaries and transfers the health insurance data to health researchers after ethical approval has been obtained. To ensure the accuracy of the claim files, the BNHI performs expert review on a random sample of every 50–100 ambulatory and inpatient claims quarterly (12), and false report of diagnosis results in severe penalty from the BNHI (12,13). For the current analysis, we used diabetic ambulatory care claims (1997–2002), inpatient claims (1997–2002), and the updated registry for beneficiaries (1995–2002). All datasets can be interlinked with each individual personal identification number (PIN).

Diabetic ambulatory care claim records those patients coded with diabetes-related diagnoses by either ICD-9 250 or A-code 181. An individual was classified as a diabetic patient if he or she had an initial diabetes-related diagnosis in 1997 and then experienced another one or more diagnosis within the subsequent 12 months. Additionally, the first and last outpatient visits during the 12-month period had to be separated by at least 30 days to avoid accidental inclusion of miscoded patients. The final diabetic cohort therefore consisted of 500,868 patents. The index date for patients in the diabetic group was the date of their first outpatient visit in 1997.

Using a frequency-matching technique, the age- and sex-matched control group was identified from the registry of beneficiaries, which accumulated information of all beneficiaries including PIN, date of birth, sex, geographic area of each member's NHI unit, and date of enrollment and withdrawal from NHI each time between March 1995 and December 2002. Due to missing information on age or sex for 620 diabetic patients, we could select only 500,248 control subjects in this analysis. The index date for subjects in the control group was the first date of enrollment to NHI. If their first date of enrollment was before 1 January 1997, the index date was set as 1 January 1997, which was the starting point for the study.

The age of each study subject was estimated by the difference in time between the index date and the date of birth. We grouped the area of each member's NHI unit, either the beneficiaries' residential area or location of their employment, into four geographic areas or three urbanization statuses according to the National Statistics of Regional Standard Classification (14).

Study end points

The inpatient claims include the records of all hospitalization events and provide various pieces of information, including PIN, date of birth, sex, and date of admission and discharge (maximum of five leading discharge diagnoses and four operation procedure codes). With the unique PIN, we linked subjects in both the diabetic and control groups to inpatient claims (1997–2002) to identify the first instance, if any, of primary and secondary procedure codes of nontraumatic LEA (ICD-9: 84.1 and 84.10–84.18) and nontraumatic PRP (ICD-9: 39.25, 39.29, and 39.59) as the end points of this study. Both outcomes were analyzed separately. We regarded all diagnoses without E-codes as nontraumatic cases. The date of encountering each clinical end point was the 1st day of hospitalization. The 6-year follow-up period began on 1 January 1997 and ended on 31 December 2002.

Statistical analysis

Two major statistical analyses were performed in the study. First, the age- and sex-specific incidence density estimate was calculated with person-years as the denominator under the Poisson assumption. Second, the Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to calculate the cumulative event rates of LEA and PRP according to different sexes over a 6-year (1997–2002) follow-up period, and the log-rank test was used to test the difference between the survival curves. The study subjects who died in the hospital for reasons not relevant to the clinical outcomes of interest were considered censored in the survival analysis, and the date of censoring was the date on which they died. If the subject did not encounter in-hospital mortality, the date of censoring was either the date of their last withdrawal from NHI or the date of study termination (i.e., 31 December 2002). To assess the independent effects of diabetes on the risks of LEA and PRP, we conducted Cox proportional hazard regression models with age, sex, geographic area, and urbanization status adjusted simultaneously in the model. Adjustment for the latter two geographic variables was made to account for possible geographic variations in medical care resources, which were considered to pose considerable influences on a clinical decision regarding performing LEA and PRP (15,16). All statistical analyses were performed with SAS (version 8.2; SAS Institute, Cary, NC). A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Survival curves were depicted by Stata Statistical Software (release 8.0; Stata, College Station, TX).

RESULTS—

The mean (±SD) age of the diabetic group was 59.71 ± 12.52 years, while that for the control group was 59.61 ± 12.64 years. Age and sex were equally distributed in both groups. The percentage of study subjects aged <35, 35–44, 45–54, 55–64, and >64 years was 3.03, 8.86, 19.31, 29.40, and 39.40%, respectively. Female patients were slightly predominant in both groups.

Figure 1 presents the Kaplan-Meier survival curves for LEA and PRP in the diabetic and control groups over a 6-year period. Diabetic men were observed to be more susceptible to both procedures of interest than diabetic women. The 6-year cumulative event rates of LEA for diabetic men and women were 2.40 and 1.87%, respectively, while those of control men and women were 0.28 and 0.17%, respectively (P for log-rank test <0.0001). Similarly, the cumulative event rates of PRP for the diabetic group (0.7% in diabetic men and 0.52% in diabetic women) were significantly higher than the corresponding data observed in the control group (0.20% in control men and 0.15% in control women) (P for log-rank test <0.0001).

Table 1 shows the overall and age- and sex-specific incident densities and relative hazards of LEA. The overall incidence density of LEA was estimated at 410.3 and 317.0 per 100,000 person-years for diabetic men and women, respectively. The corresponding data for control male and female populations were much lower at 44.4 and 26.9 per 100,000 person-years. In both diabetic and control groups, the incidence density of LEA increased with age up to 75–84 years in men, but it peaked up to >84 years in women. Except for those aged >84 years, men in all age-groups had consistently higher incidence densities than women, irrespective of diabetes status. Compared with the control subjects with the same age and sex, the relative hazards of LEA significantly increased for all age-groups in both sexes, and the highest hazard ratios (HRs) were observed in the diabetic patients between 45 and 54 years of age (17.40 [95% CI 12.39–24.43] in men and 27.92 [16.71–46.66] in women). In addition, there was a tendency for the age-specific HR to decrease with age in both diabetic men and women.

For the nontraumatic revascularization procedures, the overall incidence density estimated for diabetic men and women was 115.2 and 86.0 per 100,000 person-years. The corresponding data for control men and women were 31.3 and 21.4 per 100,000 person-years. Again the incidence density also increased with age up to 65–74 years and decreased thereafter in both groups irrespective of sex. The incidence density of PRP was observed to be higher in men than women in the middle age-groups (45–84 years), but women in the lower (<45 years) and higher (>84 years) age-groups experienced higher incidence densities than men of the same ages. Such sex-specific pattern of incidence density was similarly observed irrespective of diabetes status. Generally, nearly all age- and sex-specific HRs of PRP are significantly elevated at ∼4, except for some particularly high risk estimates that were noted in diabetic men 35–44 years of age (HR 15.68 [95% CI 3.80–65.24]) and diabetic women 35–44 (6.00 [2.34–15.22]) and 45–54 (8.72 [4.93–15.41]) years of age (Table 2). Although younger diabetic men and women tended to experience higher HRs of PRP than older patients, the decline trend of age-specific HR was less apparent for PRP than LEA. Moreover, the age-specific HR of PRP was also less heterogeneous between men and women.

CONCLUSIONS—

Direct comparisons of the incidence densities of LEA between our diabetic population and those investigated in previous studies are difficult, even nearly impossible, mainly because of different study designs including dissimilarity in baseline demographic characteristics, dissimilarity in methods of outcome ascertainment, and variation in length of follow-up. Generally, the incidence density of LEA of the diabetic cohort noted in our study was lower than that of previous studies (17–22). A relatively low incidence (23,24) and prevalence (25) rate of LEA among diabetic patients was also previously reported in Eastern-Asian ethnic groups. It has been postulated that a lower incidence rate of LEA associated with Asian people may be due to a lower prevalence of peripheral vascular disease (26). Old age and male sex, risk factors for peripheral vascular disease (27), were also found to be associated with increased hazards of amputation in our study.

We found high relative HRs (9.22 in men and 11.67 in women) of LEA in the diabetic population in Taiwan, but such HRs were still lower than those of previous studies (2–6,28). Age showed an apparent effect modification in our data; younger patients tended to have higher HRs, and the highest HRs were observed in subjects between 45 and 54 years of age for both sexes. O'Connor et al. (29) argued that younger diabetic patients tended to have poor glycemic control, poor health-related behaviors, less frequent clinic visits, and irregular assessment of diabetes-related complications, which could worsen the prognosis of young diabetic patients. The risks of amputation in diabetic women were also higher, and their unfavorable lipid profile (30–32) and impaired endothelial function (33) might have eliminated the female advantage in those diabetic patients.

Increasing evidence has shown that it is cost-effective to establish a multidisciplinary foot care team with screening, patient and staff education, and multifactorial treatment of foot ulcers (34) for the prevention of diabetes-related amputation. Employing podiatrists and increasing the number of foot clinics in Dutch hospitals (35) and providing a comprehensive medical, surgical, and orthopedic program for diabetic foot ulcers in Sweden (36) were reported to decrease the amputation rate. In Texas, implementation of a population-based screening and treatment program for diabetic foot dramatically reduced hospitalizations and improved clinical outcomes (37). From the clinical and public health perspectives, it is necessary to implement such an integrated and well-structured diabetes foot care system in Taiwan to prevent loss of limb in high-risk diabetic patients.

The incidence density of nontraumatic PRP in Taiwan was found to be lower than that of the U.S. veterans with diabetes (38). This was probably due to a low prevalence of foot ulceration among diabetic patients in Taiwan (9) or differences in surgical practice between nations. As for the effects of diabetes on the risks of PRP, we observed that the overall HRs were ∼9.22 (95% CI 8.39–10.12) in diabetic men and ∼11.67 (10.44–13.05) in diabetic women. Nonetheless, unlike the observation for LEA, the overall and age-specific HRs of PRP between men and women were less obvious. Moreover, age did not seem to pose considerable effect modification on the HR of PRP in both sexes. Whether these findings are indicative of inadequate provision of PRP to the high-risk groups, such as young and female diabetic patients, deserves further investigation.

Our study had several methodological strengths. First, we used the NHI claim, which is representative and allows little room for selection or recall bias, and there is small likelihood of nonresponse and loss to follow-up of cohort members. Second, one of the potential advantages of using insurance claim datasets is that the longitudinal records for a large sample of geographically dispersed patients can be easily obtained (39). Third, such a large number of study subjects also made it possible for us to make age- and sex-stratified analyses without compromising the required sample size. Fourth, since the decisions regarding whether to perform procedures can be dependent on the medical resources and physicians' behavior, adjustment for geographic location and urbanization of living or employment areas of the study subjects was likely to reduce such geographic-related confounding.

There were also several limitations in our study. First, exclusive reliance on claim data might result in potential disease misclassification bias in our study, as the type of reimbursement system could influence the assignment of hospital discharge codes to increase payment to hospitals (40). However, we used at least two diabetes-related diagnoses, with the first and the last visits >30 days apart, which would largely reduce the likelihood of disease misclassification. Second, we could not differentiate between type 1 and type 2 diabetes among the diabetic population included in our study. In Taiwan, type 1 diabetes constitutes only 1.8% of all types of diabetes (41) and the ratio of newly diagnosed type 2 to type 1 diabetes among school children aged 6–18 years is approximately six to one (42). Therefore, the majority of our young diabetic patients tends to be comprised of type 2 diabetic patients.

In conclusion, our study showed very high relative risks of LEA in a diabetic cohort, especially in young and female patients. As LEA is a significant economic burden for our society, it is necessary to implement a multidisciplinary diabetes foot care system that includes the provision of revascularization procedures for high-risk diabetic patients.

Figure 1—
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1—

Kaplan-Meier survival curves for LEA (A) and PRP (B).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1—

Overall and age- and sex-specific incidence densities and relative hazards of nontraumatic LEA (ICD-9: 84.1 and 84.10–84.18) in the diabetic and control groups

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2—

Overall and age- and sex-specific incidence density and relative hazards of nontraumatic PRP (ICD-9: 39.25, 39.29, and 39.59) in the diabetic and control groups

Acknowledgments

This study was partially supported by a contract with the National Scientific Council (NSC-93-2320-B-030-006).

The interpretation and conclusions contained herein do not represent those of the BNHI, the Department of Health, or the NHRI.

Footnotes

  • A table elsewhere in this issue shows conventional and Système International (SI) units and conversion factors for many substances.

    The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked “advertisement” in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

    • Accepted August 8, 2006.
    • Received July 27, 2006.
  • DIABETES CARE

References

  1. ↵
    Adler AI, Stevens RJ, Neil A, Stratton IM, Boulton AJM, Holman RR, the UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group: UKPDS 59: hyperglycemia and other potentially modifiable risk factors for peripheral vascular disease in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 25: 894–899, 2002
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    Most RS, Sinnock P: The epidemiology of lower extremity amputations in diabetic individuals. Diabetes Care 6:87–91, 1983
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. Siitonen OI, Niskanen LK, Laakso M, Siitonen JT, Pyörälä K: Lower extremity amputations in diabetic and nondiabetic patients: a population-based study in eastern Finland. Diabetes Care 16:16–20, 1993
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. Trautner C, Haastert B, Giani G, Berger M: Incidence of lower limb amputations and diabetes. Diabetes Care 19:1006–1009, 1996
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. Calle-Pascual AL, Redondo MJ, Ballesteros M, Martinez-Salinas MA, Diaz JA, De Matias P, Calle JR, Gil E, Jimenez M, Serrano FJ, Martin-Alvarez PJ, Maranes JP: Nontraumatic lower extremity amputations in diabetic and non-diabetic subjects in Madrid, Spain. Diabetes Metab 23:519–523, 1997
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  6. ↵
    Trautner C, Haastert B, Giani G, Berger M: Amputations and diabetes: a case-control study. Diabet Med 19:35–40, 2002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. ↵
    Holstein P, Ellitsgaard N, Olsen BB, Ellitsgaard V: Decreasing incidence of major amputations in people with diabetes. Diabetologia 43:844–847, 2000
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. ↵
    Tseng CH, Tai TY, Chen CJ, Lin BJ: Ten-year clinical analysis of diabetic leg amputees. J Formos Med Assoc 93:388–392, 1994
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. ↵
    Wang CL, Wang M, Lin MC, Chien KL, Huang YC, Lee YT: Foot complications in people with diabetes: a community-based study in Taiwan. J Formos Med Assoc 99:5–10, 2000
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    Lu JFR, Hsiao WC: Does universal health insurance make health care unaffordable? Lessons from Taiwan. Health Aff 22:77–88, 2003
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    Chiang TL: Taiwan's 1995 health care reform. Health Policy 39:225–239, 1997
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. ↵
    Bureau of National Health Insurance Website [Internet], 2000. Available from http://www.nhi.gov.tw/information/bulletin_file/421_0890036465–19.doc. Accessed 2 May 2006
  13. ↵
    Tseng CH: Mortality and causes of death in a national sample of diabetic patients in Taiwan. Diabetes Care 27:1605–1609, 2004
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    Directorate-General Budget, Accounting and Statistics: National Statistics of Regional Standard Classification Data From Directorate-General Budget, Accounting and Statistics. Taipei, Taiwan, Directorate-General Budget, Accounting and Statistics, 1993
  15. ↵
    Van Houtum WH, Lavery LA: Outcomes associated with diabetes-related amputations in the Netherlands and in the state of California, USA. J Intern Med 240:227–231, 1996
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    Wrobel JS, Mayfield JA, Reiber GE: Geographic variation of lower-extremity major amputation in individuals with and without diabetes in the Medicare population. Diabetes Care 24:860–864, 2001
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    Lee JS, Lu M, Lee VS, Russell D, Bahr C, Lee ET: Lower-extremity amputation: incidence, risk factors and mortality in the Okalahoma Indians Diabetes Study. Diabetes 42:876–882, 1993
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. Humphrey ARG, Dowse GK, Thoma K, Zimmet PZ: Diabetes and nontraumatic lower extremity amputations: incidence, risk factors, and prevention: a 12-year follow-up study in Nauru. Diabetes Care 19:710–714, 1996
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. Schraer CD, Adler AI, Mayer AM, Halderson KR, Trimble BA: Diabetes complications and mortality among Alaska Natives: 8 years of observation. Diabetes Care 20:314–321, 1997
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. Adler AI, Boyko EJ, Ahroni JH, Smith DG: Lower-extremity amputation in diabetes: the independent effects of peripheral vascular disease, sensory neuropathy, and foot ulcers. Diabetes Care 22:1029–1035, 1999
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. Bertoni AG, Krop JS, Anderson GF, Brancati FL: Diabetes-related morbidity and mortality in a national sample of U.S. elders. Diabetes Care 25:471–475, 2002
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    Leelawattana R, Rattarasarn C, Lim A, Soonthornpun S, Setasuban W: Causes of death, incidence and risk factors of cardiovascular diseases in Thai type 2 diabetic patients: a 5 year follow-up study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 60:183–189, 2003
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. ↵
    Gujral JS, McNally PG, O'Malley BP, Burden AC: Ethnic differences in the incidence of lower extremity amputation secondary to diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med 10:271–274, 1993
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  24. ↵
    Lee ET, Keen H, Bennett PH, Fuller JH, Lu M, the WHO Multinational Study Group: Follow-up of the WHO Multinational Study of Vascular Disease in Diabetes: general description and morbidity. Diabetologia 44(Suppl. 2):S3–S13, 2001
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    Chi ZS, Lee ET, Lu M, Keen H, Bennett PH, the WHO Multinational Study Group: Vascular disease prevalence in diabetic patients in China: standardized comparison with the 14 centers in the WHO Multinational Study of Vascular Disease in Diabetes. Diabetologia 44(Suppl. 2):S82–S86, 2001
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    Amos AF, McCarty DJ, Zimmet P: The rising global burden of diabetes and its complications: estimates and projections to the year 2010. Diabet Med 14(Suppl. 5):S1–S85, 1997
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    Bild DE, Selby JV, Sinnock P, Browner WS, Braveman P, Showstack JA: Lower-extremity amputation in people with diabetes: epidemiology and prevention. Diabetes Care 12:24–31, 1989
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    Morris AD, McAlpine R, Steinke D, Boyle DIR, Ebrahim A, Vasudev N, Stewart CPU, Jung RT, Leese GP, MacDonald TM, Newton RW, the DARTS/MEMO Collaboration: Diabetes and lower-limb amputations in the community: a retrospective cohort study. Diabetes Care 21:738–743, 1998
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    O'Connor PJ, Desai JR, Solberg LI, Rush WA, Bishop DB: Variation in diabetes care by age: opportunities for customization of care. BMC Fam Pract 4:16, 2003
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. ↵
    Barrett-Connor EL, Cohn BA, Wingard DL, Edelstein SL: Why is diabetes mellitus a stronger risk factor for fatal ischemic heart disease in women than in men? The Rancho Bernardo Study. JAMA 265:627–631, 1991
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. Howard BV, Cowan LD, Go O, Welty TK, Robbins DC, Lee ET, the Strong Heart Study Investigators: Adverse effects of diabetes on multiple cardiovascular disease risk factors in women: the Strong Heart Study. Diabetes Care 21:1258–1265, 1998
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    Lee WL, Cheung AM, Cape D, Zinman B: Impact of diabetes on coronary heart disease in women and men: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. Diabetes Care 23:962–968, 2000
    OpenUrlAbstract
  33. ↵
    Steinberg HO, Paradisi G, Cronin J, Crowde K, Hempfling A, Hook G, Baron AD: Type II diabetes abrogates sex differences in endothelial function in premenopausal women. Circulation 101:2040–2046, 2000
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    Ragnarson Tennvall G, Apelqvist J: Prevention of diabetes-related foot ulcers and amputations: a cost-utility analysis based on Markov model stimulations. Diabetologia 44:2077–2087, 2001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  35. ↵
    van Houtum WH, Rauwerda JA, Ruwaard D, Schaper NC, Bakker K: Reduction in diabetes-related lower-extremity amputations in the Netherlands: 1991–2000. Diabetes Care 27:1042–1046, 2004
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    Apelqvist J, Larsson J: What is the most effective way to reduce incidence of amputation in the diabetic foot? Diabetes Metab Res Rev 16(Suppl. 1):S75–S83, 2000
    OpenUrl
  37. ↵
    Lavery LA, Wunderlich RP, Tredwell JL: Disease management for the diabetic foot: effectiveness of a diabetic foot prevention program to reduce amputations and hospitalizations. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 70:31–37, 2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  38. ↵
    Mayfield JA, Reiber GE, Maynard C, Czerniecki J, Sangeorzan B: The epidemiology of lower-extremity disease in veterans with diabetes. Diabetes Care 27(Suppl. 2):B39–B44, 2004
    OpenUrl
  39. ↵
    Jollis JG, Ancukiewicz M, DeLong ER, Pryor DB, Muhlbaier LH, Mark DB: Discordance of databases designed for claims payment versus clinical information systems: implications for outcomes research. Ann Intern Med 119:844–850, 1993
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  40. ↵
    Assaf AR, Lapane KL, McKenney JL, Carleton RA: Possible influence of the prospective payment system on the assignment of discharge diagnoses for coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med 329:931–935, 1993
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  41. ↵
    Chuang LM, Tsai ST, Huang BY, Tai TY, the DIABCARE (Taiwan) Study Group: The current state of diabetes management in Taiwan. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 54(Suppl. 1):S55–S65, 2001
    OpenUrl
  42. ↵
    Wei JN, Sung FC, Lin CC, Lin RS, Chiang CC, Chuang LM: National surveillance for type 2 diabetes mellitus in Taiwanese children. JAMA 290:1345–1350, 2003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Diabetes Care: 29 (11)

In this Issue

November 2006, 29(11)
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
Sign up to receive current issue alerts
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Diabetes Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Age and Sex May Significantly Interact With Diabetes on the Risks of Lower-Extremity Amputation and Peripheral Revascularization Procedures
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Diabetes Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Diabetes Care web site.
Citation Tools
Age and Sex May Significantly Interact With Diabetes on the Risks of Lower-Extremity Amputation and Peripheral Revascularization Procedures
Hua-Fen Chen, Ching-An Ho, Chung-Yi Li
Diabetes Care Nov 2006, 29 (11) 2409-2414; DOI: 10.2337/dc06-1343

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Add to Selected Citations
Share

Age and Sex May Significantly Interact With Diabetes on the Risks of Lower-Extremity Amputation and Peripheral Revascularization Procedures
Hua-Fen Chen, Ching-An Ho, Chung-Yi Li
Diabetes Care Nov 2006, 29 (11) 2409-2414; DOI: 10.2337/dc06-1343
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—
    • RESULTS—
    • CONCLUSIONS—
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Suboptimal Use of Cardioprotective Drugs in Newly Treated Elderly Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes
  • Disparities in Diabetes Care Between Smokers and Nonsmokers
  • Diabetic Retinopathy and the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease
Show more Epidemiology/Health Services/Psychosocial Research

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Standards of Care Guidelines
  • Online Ahead of Print
  • Archives
  • Submit
  • Subscribe
  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • About the Journal
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Journal Policies
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Advertising
  • Privacy Policy: ADA Journals
  • Copyright Notice/Public Access Policy
  • Contact Us

Other ADA Resources

  • Diabetes
  • Clinical Diabetes
  • Diabetes Spectrum
  • BMJ Open - Diabetes Research & Care
  • Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
  • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
  • Professional Books
  • Diabetes Forecast

 

  • DiabetesJournals.org
  • Diabetes Core Update
  • ADA's DiabetesPro
  • ADA Member Directory
  • Diabetes.org

© 2019 by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care Print ISSN: 0149-5992, Online ISSN: 1935-5548.