4.3 Article

Lipoprotein(a) and homocysteine as genetic risk factors for vascular and neuropathic diabetic foot in type 2 diabetes mellitus

期刊

ENDOCRINE
卷 41, 期 1, 页码 89-95

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12020-011-9544-4

关键词

Lipoprotein(a); Homocysteine; Diabetic foot; Diabetic neuropathy; Peripheral artery disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neuropathy and peripheral artery disease represent the main pathophysiological conditions underlying diabetic foot. Several studies showed that Lipoprotein(a)-Lp(a)-and homocysteine (Hcy) can be associated with diabetic complications, but their relationship with diabetic foot is unclear. Aim of this study was to investigate whether Lp(a) and Hcy were associated with diabetic foot ulcerations, classified according to the presence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) or neuropathy. From among consecutive type 2 diabetic attending at the Diabetic Foot Clinic 27 subjects with vascular diabetic foot (VDF), 43 with neuropathic diabetic foot (NDF) and 52 controls without foot ulceration, neuropathy, and PAD were enrolled. Both Lp(a) (26.1 +/- A 22.7 vs. 14.9 +/- A 19.5 mg/dl; P = 0.003) and Hcy levels (15.4 +/- A 5.7 vs. 12.2 +/- A 5.1 mu mol/l; P = 0.022) were significantly greater in the VDF group than in controls. Lp(a) levels were significantly lower in the NDF group than in controls (6.9 +/- A 8.1 versus 14.9 +/- A 19.5 mg/dl; P = 0.009), while no difference in Hcy levels was found. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that Hcy was associated with VDF (OR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.07-14.1; P = 0.048). Lp(a) did not enter the model, but its P-value was very near to the significant level (OR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.99-12.05; P = 0.059). Moreover, low Lp(a) levels were associated with NDF (OR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.21-0.96; P = 0.039). Our study has shown for the first time that high Lp(a) and Hcy levels are associated with the development of VDF, while low Lp(a) levels appear to be associated with delayed wound healing in patients with neuropathic foot ulcerations.

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

4.3
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