ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the disparities in the outcomes of White, African American (AA) and non-AA minority (Hispanics and Native Americans (NA)), patients admitted in the hospitals with diabetic foot infections (DFIs).Research design and methodsThe HCUP-Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2002 to 2015) was queried to identify patients who were admitted to the hospital for management of DFI using ICD-9 codes. Outcomes evaluated included minor and major amputations, open or endovascular revascularization, and hospital length of stay (LOS). Incidence for amputation and open or endovascular revascularization were evaluated over the study period. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to assess the association between race/ethnicity and outcomes.ResultsThere were 150,701 admissions for DFI, including 98,361 Whites, 24,583 AAs, 24,472 Hispanics, and 1,654 Native Americans (NAs) in the study cohort. Overall, 45,278 (30%) underwent a minor amputation, 9,039 (6%) underwent a major amputation, 3,151 underwent an open bypass, and 8,689 had an endovascular procedure. There was a decreasing incidence in major amputations and an increasing incidence of minor amputations over the study period (P < .05). The risks for major amputation were significantly higher (all p<0.05) for AA (OR 1.4, 95%CI 1.4,1.5), Hispanic (OR 1.3, 95%CI 1.3,1.4), and NA (OR 1.5, 95%CI 1.2,1.8) patients with DFIs compared to White patients. Hispanics (OR 1.3, 95%CI 1.2,1.5) and AAs (OR 1.2, 95%CI 1.1,1.4) were more likely to receive endovascular intervention or open bypass than Whites (all p<0.05). NA patients with DFI were less likely to receive a revascularization procedure (OR 0.6, 95%CI 0.3, 0.9, p = 0.03) than Whites. The mean hospital length of stay (LOS) was significantly longer for AAs (9.2 days) and Hispanics (8.6 days) with DFIs compared to Whites (8.1 days, p<0.001).ConclusionDespite a consistent incidence reduction of amputation over the past decade, racial and ethnic minorities including African American, Hispanic, and Native American patients admitted to hospitals with DFIs have a consistently significantly higher risk of major amputation and longer hospital length of stay than their White counterparts. Native Americans were less likely to receive revascularization procedures compared to other minorities despite exhibiting an elevated risk of an amputation. Further study is required to address and limit racial and ethnic disparities and to further promote equity in the treatment and outcomes of these at-risk patients.

Summary Early Drosophila embryogenesis is characterized by shifting from astral microtubule-based to central spindle-based positioning of cleavage furrows. Before cellularization, astral microtubules determine metaphase furrow position by producing Rappaport-like furrows, which encompass rather than bisect the spindle. Their positioning is explained by our finding that the conserved central spindle components centralspindlin (mKLP1 and RacGAP50C), Polo, and Fascetto (Prc1) localize to the astral microtubule overlap region. These components and the chromosomal passenger complex localize to the central spindle, though no furrow forms there. We identify the maternally supplied RhoGEF2 as a key factor in metaphase furrow positioning. Unlike the zygotic, central spindle-localized RhoGEF (Pebble), RhoGEF2 localizes to metaphase furrows, a function distinct from RhoGEF/Pebble and likely due to the absence of a RacGAP50C binding domain. Accordingly, we find that ectopic activation of Rho GTPase generates furrows perpendicular to the central spindle during syncytial divisions. Whereas metaphase furrow formation is myosin independent, these ectopic furrows, like conventional furrows, require myosin as well as microtubules. These studies demonstrate that early Drosophila embryogenesis is primed to form furrows at either overlapping astral microtubules or the central spindle. We propose that the shift to the latter is driven by a corresponding shift from RhoGEF2 to Pebble in controlling furrow formation.

IntroductionThis study aimed to examine the association of race and ethnicity on the risk of lower extremity amputations among Medicare beneficiaries with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) and diabetic foot infections (DFIs).Research design and methodsA retrospective study included 2011–2015 data of a 5% sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with a newly diagnosed DFU and/or DFI. The primary outcome was the time to the first major amputation episode after a DFU and/or DFI were identified using the diagnosis and procedure codes. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the risk of time to the first major amputation across races, adjusting for sociodemographic and health status factors. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) with a 95% CI were reported.ResultsAmong 92 929 Medicare beneficiaries newly diagnosed with DFUs and/or DFIs, 77% were whites, 14.3% African Americans (AAs), 3.3% Hispanics, 0.7% Native Americans (NAs), and 4.0% were other races. The incidence rates of major amputation were 0.02 person-years for NAs, 0.02 person-years for AAs, 0.01 person-years for Hispanics, 0.01 person-years for other races, and 0.01 person-years for whites (p<0.05). Multivariable analysis showed that AAs (aHR=1.9, 95% CI 1.7 to 2.2, p<0.0001) and NAs (aHR=1.8, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.6, p=0.001) were associated with an increased risk of major amputation compared with whites. Beneficiaries with DFUs and/or DFIs diagnosed by a podiatrist or primary care physician (aHR=0.7, 95% CI 0.6 to 0.8, p<0.0001, specialists as reference) or at an outpatient visit (aHR=0.3, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.3, p<0.0001, inpatient stay as reference) were associated with a decreased risk of major amputation.ConclusionsRacial and ethnic disparities in the risk of lower extremity amputations appear to exist among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with diabetic foot problems. AAs and NAs with DFUs and/or DFIs were associated with an increased risk of major amputations compared with white Medicare beneficiaries.

VCAM-1 displays significantly higher expression on high-risk (symptomatic) vs low-risk (asymptomatic) carotid plaques. Ultrasound contrast agents bearing ligands for VCAM-1 can sustain high-shear attachment and may be useful for identifying patients in whom more aggressive treatment is warranted.

Within a matter of 48 hours, the promotion of the article entitled "Prevalence of unprofessional social media content among young vascular surgeons," aptly demonstrated the power of social media and the dangers of unconscious bias as it spread across Twitter with the #MedBikini tag. In response, vascular surgeons from around the world have come together in a call to action to address the article and highlight the misogynistic, racist, and oppressive issues facing young surgeons today. We, as female vascular surgery trainees, would like to make our own call to action. The publication of this article (now appropriately retracted) has encouraged important dialogue among female vascular surgeons, male colleagues who support #HeforShe initiatives, other disadvantaged and marginalized groups in surgery, and the future generation of surgeons who will pave the path forward. We have converged to discuss the current climate of our specialty and have determined that now is an opportunity for change.It is essential that we pursue ethics, as well as excellence, in surgical practice and research. The inherent conscious and unconscious biases, poor study design, and unethical data collection methods within the article have demonstrated a critical flaw within the editorial process of the Journal of Vascular Surgery (JVS). We are disappointed to find ourselves represented by the article. The publication was both tone deaf toward, and discriminatory against, us as professionals, trainees, and women. As vascular surgeons, we must hold ourselves to a higher standard. Our call to action for the JVS includes the following:1. Re-examine the review process for publication of ethical abstracts from regional and national meetings and manuscripts, and provide training in ethical research for all editors and reviewers.