4.5 Article

Risk Factors for Diabetes Mellitus in Chronic Pancreatitis: A Cohort of 2011 Patients

期刊

MEDICINE
卷 95, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003251

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81422010, 81100316, 81470883, 81300355]
  2. Shanghai ChenGuang Program [12CG40]
  3. Shanghai Health Bureau Youth Scientific Research Program [AB83070002011019]
  4. Shanghai Outstanding Youth Doctor Training Program [AB83030002015034]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a common complication of chronic pancreatitis (CP) and increases the mortality. The identification of risk factors for DM development may contribute to the early detection and potential risk reduction of DM in patients with CP.Patients with CP admitted to Changhai Hospital (Shanghai, China) from January 2000 to December 2013 were enrolled. Cumulative rates of DM after the onset of CP were calculated by Kaplan-Meier method. Risk factors for DM development after the diagnosis of CP were identified by Cox proportional hazards regression model.A total of 2011 patients with CP were enrolled. During follow-up (median duration, 22.0 years), 564 patients developed DM. Cumulative rates of DM 20 and 50 years after the onset of CP were 45.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 41.8%-50.0%) and 90.0% (95% CI, 75.4%-97.7%), respectively. Five risk factors for DM development after the diagnosis of CP were identified: male sex (hazard ratio [HR], 1.51; 95% CI, 1.08-2.11), alcohol abuse (HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.43-2.79), steatorrhea (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.01-2.11), biliary stricture (HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.43-3.52), and distal pancreatectomy (HR, 3.41; 95% CI, 1.80-6.44).In conclusion, the risk of developing DM in patients with CP is not only influenced by the development of biliary stricture and steatorrhea indicating disease progression, and inherent nature of study subjects such as male sex, but also by modifiable factors including alcohol abuse and distal pancreatectomy .

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据