Diagnosis of infection in the foot of patients with diabetes: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Securing an early accurate diagnosis of diabetic foot infections and assessment of their severity are of paramount importance since these infections can cause great morbidity and potential mortality and present formidable challenges in surgical and antimicrobial treatment. METHODS: In June 2022, we searched the literature using PubMed and EMBASE for published studies on the diagnosis of diabetic foot infection (DFI). On the basis of pre-determined criteria, we reviewed prospective controlled, as well as non-controlled, studies in English. We then developed evidence statements based on the included papers. RESULTS: We selected a total of 64 papers that met our inclusion criteria. The certainty of the majority of the evidence statements was low because of the weak methodology of nearly all of the studies. The available data suggest that diagnosing diabetic foot infections on the basis of clinical signs and symptoms and classified according to the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot/Infectious Diseases Society of America scheme correlates with the patient's likelihood of the need for hospitalisation, lower extremity amputation, and risk of death. Elevated levels of selected serum inflammatory markers such as erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein and procalcitonin are supportive, but not diagnostic, of soft tissue infection. Culturing tissue samples of soft tissues or bone, when care is taken to avoid contamination, provides more accurate microbiological information than culturing superficial (swab) samples. Although non-culture techniques, especially next-generation sequencing, are likely to identify more bacteria from tissue samples including bone than standard cultures, no studies have established a significant impact on the management of patients with DFIs. In patients with suspected diabetic foot osteomyelitis, the combination of a positive probe-to-bone test and elevated ESR supports this diagnosis. Plain X-ray remains the first-line imaging examination when there is suspicion of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO), but advanced imaging methods including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and nuclear imaging when MRI is not feasible help in cases when either the diagnosis or the localisation of infection is uncertain. Intra-operative or non-per-wound percutaneous biopsy is the best method to accurately identify bone pathogens in case of a suspicion of a DFO. Bedside percutaneous biopsies are effective and safe and are an option to obtain bone culture data when conventional (i.e. surgical or radiological) procedures are not feasible. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review of the diagnosis of diabetic foot infections provide some guidance for clinicians, but there is still a need for more prospective controlled studies of high quality.

Canadian Cardiovascular Society 2022 Guidelines for Peripheral Arterial Disease.

Patients with widespread atherosclerosis such as peripheral artery disease (PAD) have a high risk of cardiovascular and limb symptoms and complications, which affects their quality of life and longevity. Over the past 2 decades there have been substantial advances in diagnostics, pharmacotherapy, and interventions including endovascular and open surgical to aid in the management of PAD patients. To summarize the evidence regarding approaches to diagnosis, risk stratification, medical and intervention treatments for patients with PAD, guided by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework, evidence was synthesized, and assessed for quality, and recommendations provided-categorized as weak or strong for each prespecified research question. Fifty-six recommendations were made, with 27% (15/56) graded as strong recommendations with high-quality evidence, 14% (8/56) were designated as strong recommendations with moderate-quality evidence, and 20% (11/56) were strong recommendations with low quality of evidence. Conversely 39% (22/56) were classified as weak recommendations. For PAD patients, strong recommendations on the basis of high-quality evidence, include smoking cessation interventions, structured exercise programs for claudication, lipid-modifying therapy, antithrombotic therapy with a single antiplatelet agent or dual pathway inhibition with low-dose rivaroxaban and aspirin; treatment of hypertension with an angiotensin converting enzyme or angiotensin receptor blocker; and for those with diabetes, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor should be considered. Furthermore, autogenous grafts are more effective than prosthetic grafts for surgical bypasses for claudication or chronic limb-threatening ischemia involving the popliteal or distal arteries. Other recommendations indicated that new endovascular techniques and hybrid procedures be considered in patients with favourable anatomy and patient factors, and finally, the evidence for perioperative risk stratification for PAD patients who undergo surgery remains weak.

A Population-Based Analysis of Diabetes-Related Care Measures, Foot Complications, and Amputation During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Ontario, Canada.

Importance: Deferred diabetic foot screening and delays in timely care of acute foot complications during the COVID-19 pandemic may have contributed to an increase in limb loss. Objective: To evaluate the association of the COVID-19 pandemic with diabetes-related care measures, foot complications, and amputation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study included all adult residents of Ontario, Canada, with diabetes and compared the rates of selected outcomes from January 1, 2020, to February 23, 2021, vs January 1, 2019, to February 23, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Comprehensive in-person diabetes care assessment, including foot examination; hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) measurement; emergency department visit or hospitalization for diabetic foot ulceration, osteomyelitis, or gangrene; lower extremity open or endovascular revascularization; minor (toe or partial-foot) amputation; and major (above-ankle) leg amputation. Rates and rate ratios (RRs) comparing 2020-2021 vs 2019-2020 for each measure were calculated for 10-week periods, anchored relative to onset of the pandemic on March 11, 2020 (11th week of 2020). Results: On March 11, 2020, the study included 1 488 605 adults with diabetes (median [IQR] age, 65 [55-74] years; 776 665 [52.2%] men), and on March 11, 2019, the study included 1 441 029 adults with diabetes (median [IQR] age, 65 [55-74] years; 751 459 [52.1%] men). After the onset of the pandemic, rates of major amputation in 2020-2021 decreased compared with 2019-2020 levels. The RR for the prepandemic period from January 1 to March 10 was 1.05 (95% CI, 0.88-1.25), with RRs in the pandemic periods ranging from 0.86 (95% CI, 0.72-1.03) in May 20 to July 28 to 0.95 (95% CI, 0.80-1.13) in October 7 to December 15. There were no consistent differences in demographic characteristics or comorbidities of patients undergoing amputation in the 2020-2021 vs 2019-2020 periods. Rates of comprehensive in-person diabetes care assessment and HbA1c measurement declined sharply and remained below 2019-2020 levels (eg, in-person assessment, March 11 to May 19: RR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.28-0.28). The rates of emergency department visits (eg, March 11 to May 19: RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.61-0.75), hospitalization (eg, March 11 to May 19: RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.68-0.87), open revascularization (eg, March 11 to May 19: RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.56-0.79), endovascular revascularization (March 11 to May 19: RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61-0.81), and minor amputation (March 11 to May 19: RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.83) initially dropped but recovered to 2019-2020 levels over the study period. Conclusions and Relevance: In this population-based cohort study, disruptions in care related to the COVID-19 pandemic were not associated with excess leg amputations among people living with diabetes. As the pandemic ends, improved prevention and treatment of diabetic foot complications will be necessary to maintain these positive results.

The Impact of the Implementation of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Program in an Entire Health System: A Natural Experiment in Alberta, Canada.

BACKGROUND: The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) program has been shown to reduce length of stay (LOS) in colorectal surgical patients in randomized trials. The impact outside of trial settings, or in subgroups of patients excluded from trials such as individuals with diabetes, is uncertain. We conducted this study to evaluate the impact of ERAS implementation in Alberta, Canada. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study and interrupted time series analysis using linked administrative data to examine LOS and postoperative outcomes in the 12 months pre- and post-implementation of ERAS in 2013 for all adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery. RESULTS: Of 2714 patients (mean age 60.4 years, 55% men) with similar demographics and comorbidity profiles in the pre/post-ERAS time periods, LOS was significantly shorter post-ERAS (8.5 vs. 9.5 days, p = 0.01; - 0.84 days [95% CI - 0.04 to - 1.64 days] after adjustment for age, sex, Charlson comorbidity score, procedure type, surgical approach, and hospital). However, interrupted time series demonstrated no significant level change (p = 0.30) or change in slope (p = 0.63) with ERAS implementation, consistent with continuation of an underlying secular trend of reductions in LOS over time. There were no significant differences (in multivariate analysis or ITS) in risk of 30-day death/readmission (14.3% post vs. 13.5% pre-ERAS, aOR 1.12, 95% CI 0.89-1.40), 30-day death/ED visit (27.2% post vs. 30.0% pre, aOR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78-1.10), or 30-day death/readmission/ED visit (27.8% post vs. 30.6% pre, aOR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78-1.10). The 428 patients with diabetes had longer LOS but exhibited no significant difference post- versus pre-ERAS (10.7 vs. 11.6 days, p = 0.53; p = 0.56 for level change and p = 0.66 for slope change on ITS). CONCLUSION: Although there was a secular trend toward decreasing LOS over time in Alberta, ERAS implementation was not associated with statistically significant changes in LOS or postoperative outcomes for all colorectal surgery patients or for those with diabetes. Our study highlights the importance of evaluating system changes (for both uptake and outcomes) rather than assuming trial benefits will translate directly into practice. Interventions to improve LOS and postoperative outcomes for patients with diabetes undergoing colorectal surgery are still needed even in the ERAS era.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) in Individuals with Diabetes: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence of diabetes in surgical patients is 10-40%. It is well recognized that they have higher rates of complications, and longer stays in hospital compared to patients without diabetes. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is an evidence-based multimodal surgical care pathway that improves postoperative complications and length of stay in patients without diabetes. This review evaluates the evidence on whether individuals with diabetes would benefit from ERAS implementation. METHODS: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and EMBASE searched with no language restrictions applied. Conference proceedings and bibliographies were reviewed. Experts in the field were contacted, and www.clinicaltrials.gov searched for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) looking at individuals with diabetes undergoing surgery randomized to ERAS® or conventional care. Non-randomized controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, and cohort studies with concurrent controls were also considered. Two authors independently screened studies. RESULTS: The electronic search yielded 437 references. After removing duplicates, 376 were screened for eligibility. Conference proceedings and bibliographies identified additional references. Searching www.clinicaltrials.gov yielded 59 references. Contacting experts in the field identified no further studies. Fourteen full articles were assessed and subsequently excluded for the following reasons: used an intervention other than ERAS®, did not include patients with diabetes, or used an uncontrolled observational design. CONCLUSIONS: To date, the effects of ERAS® on patients with diabetes have not been rigorously evaluated. This review highlights the lack of evidence in this area and provides guidance on design for future studies.