The Application of Digital Frailty Screening to Triage Nonhealing and Complex Wounds.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the association between the complexity of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) and frailty. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Individuals (n = 38) with Grade 2 Wagner DFU were classified into 3 groups based on the Society for Vascular Surgery risk-stratification for major limb amputation as Stage 1 at very low risk (n = 19), Stage 2 at low risk (n = 9), and Stage 3 to 4 at moderate-to-high risk (n = 10) of major limb amputation. Frailty status was objectively assessed using a validated digital frailty meter (FM). The FM works by quantifying weakness, slowness, rigidity, and exhaustion over a 20-second repetitive elbow flexion-extension exercise using a wrist-worn sensor. FM generates a frailty index (FI) ranging from 0 to 1; higher values indicate progressively greater severity of frailty. Skin perfusion pressure (SPP), albumin, and tissue oxygenation level (SatO2) were also measured. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to identify group effect for wound complexity. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to assess the associations with frailty and clinical endpoints. RESULTS: Frailty index was higher in Stage 3 and 4 as compared to Stage 1 (d = 1.4, P < .01) and Stage 2 (d = 1.2, P < .01). Among assessed frailty phenotypes, exhaustion was correlated with SPP (r = -0.63, P < .01) and albumin (r = -0.5, P < .01). CONCLUSION: Digital biomarkers of frailty may predict complexity of DFU and thus triage individuals who can be treated more simply in their primary clinic versus higher risk patients who require prompt referral to multidisciplinary, more complex care.

Early experience with venous arterialization for limb salvage in no-option patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is associated with adverse limb outcomes and increased mortality. However, a small subset of the CLTI population will have no feasible conventional methods of revascularization. In such cases, venous arterialization (VA) could provide an alternative for limb salvage. The objective of the present study was to review the outcomes of VA at our institution. METHODS: We performed a single-institution review of 41 patients who had been followed up prospectively and had undergone either superficial or deep VA. The data collected included patient demographics, comorbidities, VA technique (endovascular vs hybrid), and WIfI (wound, ischemia, and foot infection) limb staging. Data were collected at 1-month, 6-month, and 1-year intervals and included the following outcomes: patency, wound healing, major adverse limb events, major amputation, and death. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. RESULTS: The study group included 41 patients who had undergone successful open hybrid superficial or deep endovascular VA; 21 (51.2%) had undergone a purely endovascular procedure and 20 (48.8%), hybrid VA. The WIfI clinical stage was as follows: stage 4, 33 (80.5%); stage 3, 6 (14.6%); and stage 2, 1 (2.4%). Of the 41 patients, 24 (58.5%) had completed follow-up at 6 months and 16 (39%) at 1 year. At 1 year, the VA primary patency was 28.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15%-0.43%), primary assisted patency was 44.3% (95% CI, 0.27%-0.60%), and secondary patency was 67% (95% CI, 0.49%-0.80%). The complete wound healing rate was 2.7% (n = 1) at 1 month, 62.5% (n = 15) at 6 months, and 18.8% (n = 3) at 1 year. Overall wound healing at 1 year was 46.3% (n = 19). The number of major adverse limb events at 1 year was 15 (36.5%) and included 8 reinterventions (19.5%) and 7 major amputations (17%). The number of deaths was zero (0%) at 1 month and four (19%) at 6 months. Two deaths (9.5%) were attributed to COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019). No further deaths had occurred within 1 year. The limb salvage survival probability at 1 year was 81%. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that for a select subset of CLTI patients presenting with a high WIfI clinical limb stage and no viable options for conventional open or endovascular arterial revascularization, superficial and deep VA are feasible options to achieve limb salvage.

Comparison of initial hemodynamic response after endovascular therapy and open surgical bypass in patients with diabetes mellitus and critical limb ischemia.

BACKGROUND: While endovascular (ENDO) therapy has increasingly become the initial intervention of choice to treat lower extremity peripheral arterial disease, reported outcomes for ENDO in patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) and diabetes have been reported to be inferior compared to open bypass surgery (OPEN). Objective data assessing the hemodynamic success of ENDO compared to the established benchmark of OPEN are sparse. We therefore evaluated and compared early hemodynamic outcomes of ENDO and OPEN in patients with diabetes with CLI at a single academic center. METHODS: We studied 85 consecutive patients with diabetes and CLI who underwent 109 interventions, either ENDO (n = 78) or OPEN (n = 31). The mean patient age was 69 years; 62% were men. All patients presented with either rest pain and/or ulcer/gangrene. Per protocol, all were assessed using ankle brachial index (ABI) and toe pressure (TP) determinations before and early postintervention. RESULTS: Both ENDO (ΔABI = 0.36 ± 0.24, P < .0001; ΔTP = 35.6 ± 24.1, P < .0001) and OPEN (ΔABI = 0.39 ± 0.17, P < .0001; ΔTP = 34.3 ± 24.0, P < .0001) resulted in significant hemodynamic improvement. There was no statistically significant initial difference between the two types of intervention (ABI, P = .6; TP, P = .6). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that with appropriate patient selection, each intervention is similarly efficacious in initially improving hemodynamics. If the intermediate or long-term results of ENDO for CLI in people with diabetes are inferior, the problem is not one of initial hemodynamic response, but more likely due to differing patient characteristics or durability of the intervention.

The impact and outcomes of establishing an integrated interdisciplinary surgical team to care for the diabetic foot.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to quantify the impact of an integrated diabetic foot surgical service on outcomes and changes in surgical volume and focus. METHODS: We abstracted registry data from 48 consecutive months at a single institution, evaluating all patients with diabetic foot complications requiring surgery or vascular intervention, and compared outcomes in the 24 months before and after integrating podiatric surgery with vascular surgical limb-salvage service. RESULTS: The service performed 2923 operations; 790 (27.0%) were related to treatment of diabetic foot complications in 374 patients. Of these, 502 were classified as non-vascular diabetic foot surgery and 288 were vascular interventions. Urgent surgery was significantly reduced after team implementation (77.7% vs 48.5%, p < 0.0001; OR = 3.7, 95% CI: 2.4-5.5). The high/low amputation ratio decreased from 0.35 to 0.27 due to an increase in low-level (midfoot) amputations (8.2% vs 26.1%, p < 0.0001; OR = 4.0, 95% CI: 2.0-83.3). A 45.7% reduction in below-knee amputations was realized with a stable above-knee/below-knee amputation ratio (0.73-0.81). One-third of patients required vascular intervention. Vascular reconstructions increased 44.1% following institution of the team. Initial revascularization was endovascular in 70.6% of patients. Repeat endovascular intervention or conversion to open bypass was required in 37.1% of these patients, almost double the reintervention rate of those receiving open bypass first (18.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Interdisciplinary diabetic foot surgery teams may significantly impact surgery type, with greater focus on proactive and preventive, rather than reactive and ablative, procedures. Although endovascular limb-sparing procedures have become increasingly applicable, open bypass remains critical to success.