4.7 Article

High Risk of Deep Neck Infection in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 7, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm7110385

Keywords

cervical; cellulitis; abscess; deep neck infection; diabetes mellitus

Funding

  1. Chiayi Chang Gung Memorial Hospital [CGRPG6G0011]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To investigate the risk of deep neck infection (DNI) in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Methods: The database of the Registry for Catastrophic Illness Patients, affiliated to the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, was used to conduct a retrospective cohort study. In total, 5741 patients with T1DM and 22,964 matched patients without diabetes mellitus (DM) were enrolled between 2000 and 2010. The patients were followed up until death or the end of the study period (31 December 2013). The primary outcome was the occurrence of DNI. Results: Patients with T1DM exhibited a significantly higher cumulative incidence of DNI than did those without DM (p < 0.001). The Cox proportional hazards model showed that T1DM was significantly associated with a higher incidence of DNI (adjusted hazard ratio, 10.71; 95% confidence interval, 6.02-19.05; p < 0.001). The sensitivity test and subgroup analysis revealed a stable effect of T1DM on DNI risk. The therapeutic methods (surgical or nonsurgical) did not differ significantly between the T1DM and non-DM cohorts. Patients with T1DM required significantly longer hospitalization for DNI than did those without DM (9.0 +/- 6.2 vs. 4.1 +/- 2.0 days, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the patients with T1DM were predisposed to DNI at a younger age than were those without DM. Conclusions: T1DM is an independent risk factor for DNI and is associated with a 10-fold increase in DNI risk. The patients with T1DM require longer hospitalizations for DNI and are younger than those without DM.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available