Clinical outcomes in people with diabetes-related foot infections: Analysis from a limb preservation service infection database.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes-related foot infections are common and represent a significant clinical challenge. There are scant data about outcomes from large cohorts. The purpose of this study was to report clinical outcomes from a large cohort of people with diabetes-related foot infections. METHODS: A tertiary referral hospital limb preservation service database was established in 2018, and all new episodes of foot infections were captured prospectively using an electronic database (REDCap). People with foot infections between January 2018 and May 2023, for whom complete data were available on infection episodes, were included. Infection outcomes were compared between skin and soft tissue infections (SST-DFI) and osteomyelitis (OM) using chi-square tests. RESULTS: Data extraction identified 647 complete DFI episodes in 397 patients. The data set was divided into two cohorts identifying each infection episode and its severity as either SST-DFI (N = 326, 50%) or OM (N = 321, 50%). Most infection presentations were classified as being moderate (PEDIS 3 = 327, 51%), with 36% mild (PEDIS 2 = 239) and 13% severe (PEDIS 4 = 81). Infection resolution occurred in 69% (n = 449) of episodes with failure in 31% (n = 198). Infection failures were more common with OM than SST-DFI (OM = 140, 71% vs. SST-DFI = 58, 29%, p < 0.00001). In patients with SST-DFI a greater number of infection failures were observed in the presence of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) compared to the patients without PAD (failure occurred in 30% (31/103) of episodes with PAD and 12% (27/223) of episodes without PAD; p < 0.001). In contrast, the number of observed infection failures in OM episodes were similar in patients with and without PAD (failure occurred in 45% (57/128) of episodes with PAD and 55% (83/193) of episodes without PAD; p = 0.78). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides important epidemiological data on the risk of poor outcomes for DFI and factors associated with poor outcomes in an Australian setting. It highlights the association of PAD and treatment failure, reinforcing the need for early intervention to improve PAD in patients with DFI. Future randomised trials should assess the benefits of revascularisation and surgery in people with DFI and particularly those with OM where outcomes are worse.

Health professionals involved in diabetic foot and their tasks in a country without podiatrists: From a Japanese Nationwide Survey.

Although there are no podiatrists in 85% of countries worldwide, how diabetic foot is managed in those countries is still unknown. We sought to identify the health professionals involved in diabetic foot and their tasks in Japan, where no podiatrists exist. This cross-sectional study used the Japanese Nationwide Survey on Foot Ulcer Management dataset, consisting of 249 medical doctors and 680 allied health professionals. The types of health professionals involved in the diabetic foot were identified, and the tasks performed by each professional were compared within subgroups (medical doctors and allied health professionals). We found that the primary medical doctors involved in diabetic foot care in Japan were plastic surgeons (33.5%), dermatologists (21%), cardiovascular/vascular surgeons (15.2%), and cardiologists (12.1%). Nurses were the main allied health professionals (80%), and the rest consisted of prosthetists/orthotists (7.6%), physical/occupational therapists (5.9%), and clinical engineering technologists (3.6%). Medical doctors performed tasks related to their specialties significantly more than others (p < 0.001); however, they also engaged in tasks outside of their specialty, such as plastic surgeons performing preventive foot care (72%). Among allied health professionals, clinical engineering technologists performed more vascular assessments (p < 0.001), and half were engaged in wound management, preventive foot care, and self-foot care education. In conclusion, the type and proportion of health professionals in our study differed from those in countries with podiatrists, and many performed tasks outside their specialties. This is the first nationwide cross-sectional study of diabetic foot care in a country without podiatrists and is unique in examining multiple specialists/professionals in one study.

Update of biomarkers to diagnose diabetic foot osteomyelitis: A meta-analysis and systematic review.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic characteristics of biomarker for diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO). We searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Medline for studies who report serological markers and DFO before December 2022. Studies must include at least one of the following diagnostic parameters for biomarkers: area under the curve, sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive value, negative predictive value. Two authors evaluated quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. We included 19 papers. In this systematic review, there were 2854 subjects with 2134 (74.8%) of those patients being included in the meta-analysis. The most common biomarkers were erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT). A meta-analysis was then performed where data were evaluated with Forrest plots and receiver operating characteristic curves. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.72 and 0.75 for PCT, 0.72 and 0.76 for CRP and 0.70 and 0.77 for ESR. Pooled area under the curves for ESR, CRP and PCT were 0.83, 0.77 and 0.71, respectfully. Average diagnostic odds ratios were 16.1 (range 3.6-55.4), 14.3 (range 2.7-48.7) and 6.7 (range 3.6-10.4) for ESR, CRP and PCT, respectfully. None of the biomarkers we evaluated could be rated as 'outstanding' to diagnose osteomyelitis. Based on the areas under the curve, ESR is an 'excellent' biomarker to detect osteomyelitis, and CRP and PCT are 'acceptable' biomarkers to diagnose osteomyelitis. Diagnostic odds ratios indicate that ESR, CRP and PCT are 'good' or 'very good' tools to identify osteomyelitis.

Outcomes for Patients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia After Direct and Indirect Endovascular and Surgical Revascularization: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this review and meta-analysis is to determine the clinical outcome differences between patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia who underwent direct versus indirect angiosome revascularization using either the surgical or endovascular approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data sources used for article selection included PubMed, Embase/Medline, Cochrane reviews, and Web of Science (All studies were in English and included up to September 2023). All articles included were comparative in design, including retrospective, prospective, and randomized controlled trials that compared the clinical outcomes between direct and indirect angiosome-guided revascularization in chronic limb-threatening ischemia. A random-effects model was used to determine the measure of association between direct revascularization and amputation-free survival, wound healing, and overall survival. Publication bias was assessed with both Begg's and Egger's test, and heterogeneity was calculated using an I2. RESULTS: Data from 9 articles were analyzed and reported in this review. Direct revascularization was associated with improved amputation-free survival (odds ratio [OR]=2.632, confidence interval [CI]: 1.625, 4.265), binary wound healing (OR=2.262, CI: 1.518, 3.372), and overall survival (OR=1.757, CI: 1.176, 2.625). Time until wound healed was not associated with either direct or indirect revascularization (Standard Mean Difference [SMD]=-2.15, p=0.11). There was a low risk of bias across all studies according to the RoB 2.0 tool. CONCLUSION: Direct revascularization is associated with improved amputation-free survival, overall survival, and wound healing in chronic limb-threatening ischemic patients compared to the indirect approach. CLINICAL IMPACT: Preservation of the lower extremity is critical for preventing mortality and maintaining independence. The benefit of angiosome-guided revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia remains controversial. The authors of this article aim to review the current literature and compare direct and indirect angiosome-guided intervention for preserving the lower extremity. Current findings suggest direct angiosome-guided intervention reduces amputation rates and improves survival; however, many trials neglect to address the multifactorial approach needed in wound care management.

The infected diabetic foot: Analysis of diabetic and non-diabetic foot infections.

The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of moderate and severe foot infections in people with and without diabetes mellitus (DM). We retrospectively evaluated 382 patients (77% with DM and 23% non-DM). We collected demographic data, co-morbidities and one-year outcomes including healing, surgical interventions, number of surgeries, length of stay, re-infection and re-hospitalisation. DM patients required more surgeries (2.3 ± 2.2 vs. 1.7 ± 1.3, p = 0.01), but did not have a longer hospital length of stay during the index hospitalisation (DM 10.9 days ±9.2 vs. non-DM = 8.8 days ±5.8, p = 0.43). After the index hospitalisation, DM patients had increased rates of re-hospitalisation for any reason (63.3% vs. 35.2%, CI 1.9-5.2, OR 3.2, p < 0.01), re-infection at the index wound infection site (48% vs. 30.7%, CI 1.3-3.5, OR 2.1, p < 0.01), re-hospitalisation for a foot pathology (47.3% vs. 29.5%, CI 1.3-3.6, OR 2.1, p < 0.01), and longer times to ulcer healing (151.8 days ±108.8 vs. 108.8 ± 90.6 days, p = 0.04). Patients with DM admitted to hospital with foot infections have worse clinical outcomes during the index hospitalisation and are more likely to have re-infection and re-admission to hospital in the next year.

Outcomes of open reduction and internal fixation of calcaneus fractures: A database study comparing patients with and without diabetes.

Treatment of calcaneal fractures in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) is challenging. The purpose of this study was to compare post-operative outcomes after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for calcaneus fracture in patients with complicated DM, uncomplicated DM, and patients without DM. A commercially available de-identified database was queried for all calcaneus fracture diagnoses undergoing ORIF from 2010 to 2021. The patients were separated into three groups for analysis: patients without DM (10,951, 82.6%), uncomplicated DM (1,500, 11.3%) and complicated DM (802, 6.1%). At 1 year, post-operative adverse events were assessed among the three groups. The odds of adverse event(s) for each group were compared between the three groups with and without characteristic matching. In the unmatched cohorts, patients with complicated DM, when compared with patients without DM and patients with uncomplicated DM, had significantly higher rates of all adverse events with exception of DVT. Rates of CNA were significantly higher in patients with complicated DM compared with no DM (OR 107.7 (CI 24.83-467.6) p < 0.0001) and uncomplicated DM (OR 44.26 (CI 3.86-507.93) p = 0.0002). After matching, non-union, AKI, sepsis, surgical site infection, and wound disruption were higher in patients with complicated DM compared with patients without DM. There were no significant differences in the three groups with regard to reoperation, DVT, MI, pneumonia, or below the knee amputation. Patients with DM who underwent ORIF for calcaneus fracture experienced higher rates of post-operative adverse events compared with those patients without DM.

The infected diabetic foot: Modulation of traditional biomarkers for osteomyelitis diagnosis in the setting of diabetic foot infection and renal impairment.

The objective of this paper was to investigate erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and c-reactive protein (CRP) in diagnosing pedal osteomyelitis (OM) in patients with and without diabetes, and with and without severe renal impairment (SRI). This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with moderate and severe foot infections. We evaluated three groups: Subjects without diabetes (NDM), subjects with diabetes and without severe renal insufficiency (DM-NSRI), and patients with diabetes and SRI (DM-SRI). SRI was defined as eGFR <30. We evaluated area under the curve (AUC), cutoff point, sensitivity and specificity to characterize the accuracy of ESR and CRP to diagnose OM. A total of 408 patients were included in the analysis. ROC analysis in the NDM group revealed the AUC for ESR was 0.62, with a cutoff value of 46 mm/h (sensitivity, 49.0%; specificity, 76.0%). DM-NSRI subjects showed the AUC for ESR was 0.70 with the cutoff value of 61 mm/h (sensitivity, 68.9%; specificity 61.8%). In DM-SRI, the AUC for ESR was 0.67, with a cutoff value of 119 mm/h (sensitivity, 46.4%; specificity, 82.40%). In the NDM group, the AUC for CRP was 0.55, with a cutoff value of 6.4 mg/dL (sensitivity, 31.3%; specificity, 84.0%). For DM-NSRI, the AUC for CRP was 0.70, with a cutoff value of 8 mg/dL (sensitivity, 49.2%; specificity, 80.6%). In DM-SRI, the AUC for CRP was 0.62, with a cutoff value of 7 mg/dL (sensitivity, 57.1%; specificity, 67.7%). While CRP demonstrated relatively consistent utility, ESR's diagnostic cutoff points diverged significantly. These results highlight the necessity of considering patient-specific factors when interpreting ESR results in the context of OM diagnosis.

MRSA infection, re-infection and clinical outcomes in diabetic foot infections.

The aim was to investigate methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) incidence, conversion and outcomes in diabetic foot infections (DFIs). This is a pooled patient-level analysis of combined data sets from two randomised clinical trials including 219 patients admitted to the hospital with moderate or severe DFIs. Intraoperative bone and tissue cultures identified bacterial pathogens. We identified pathogens at index infections and subsequent re-infections. We identified MRSA conversion (MSSA to MRSA) in re-infections. MRSA incidence in index infections was 10.5%, with no difference between soft tissue infections (STIs) and osteomyelitis (OM). MRSA conversion occurred in 7.7% of the re-infections in patients who initially had MSSA in their cultures. Patients with re-infection were 2.2 times more likely to have MRSA compared to the first infection (10.5% vs. 25.8%, relative risk [RR] = 2.2, p = 0.001). Patients with MRSA had longer antibiotic treatment during the 1-year follow-up, compared to other pathogens (other 49.8 ± 34.7 days, MRSA 65.3 ± 41.5 days, p = 0.04). Furthermore, there were no differences in healing, time to heal, length of stay, re-infection, amputation, re-ulceration, re-admission, surgery after discharge and amputation after discharge compared to other pathogens. The incidence of MRSA at the index was 10.5% with no difference in STI and OM. MRSA incidence was 25.8% in re-infections. The RR of having MRSA was 2.2 times higher in re-infections. Patients with MRSA used more antibiotics during the 1-year follow-up. Furthermore, there were no differences in clinical outcomes compared to other bacterial pathogens.

Near-infrared spectroscopy data for foot skin oxygen saturation in healthy subjects.

Our objective was to evaluate normative data for near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) in 110 healthy volunteers by Fitzpatrick skin type (FST) and region of the foot. We obtained measurements of the dorsum and plantar foot using a commercially available device (SnapshotNIR, Kent Imaging, Calgary Canada). On the dorsum of the foot, people with FST6 had significantly lower oxygen saturation compared to FST1-5 (p < 0.001), lower oxyhaemoglobin compared to FST2-5 (p = 0.001), but there was no difference in deoxyhaemoglobin. No differences were found on the plantar foot. When comparing dorsal and plantar foot, there was higher oxyhaemoglobin (0.40 ± 0.09 vs. 0.51 ± 0.12, p < 0.001) and deoxyhaemoglobin (0.16 ± 0.05 vs. 0.21 ± 0.05, p < 0.001) on the plantar foot, but no differences in oxygen saturation (dorsal 70.7 ± 10.8, plantar 70.0 ± 9.5, p = 0.414). In 6.4% of feet, there were black areas, for which no NIRS measurements could be generated. All areas with no data were on the dorsal foot and only found in FST 5-6. People with FST6 had significantly larger areas with no data compared to FST 5 (22.2 cm2 ± 20.4 vs. 1.9 cm2 ± 0.90, p = 0.007). These findings should be considered when using NIRS technology. Skin pigmentation should be evaluated in future NIRS studies.

Success of transmetatarsal amputation for limb salvage in patients with peripheral artery disease.

Limb salvage is a difficult path for patients to travel as there is no guarantee of the outcome, often the major factor is perfusion. For patients who underwent transmetatarsal amputation (TMA), success rate is crucial as the next option is most likely a major amputation. We performed a 10 years (2010-2020) retrospective review of patients that underwent a TMA and had an angiogram or computed tomography angiography (CTA) perioperatively at the Dallas VA Medical Center. Failure after TMA was defined as a patient requiring a proximal amputation within 1 year. There were 125 TMAs performed between 2010 and 2020 at the institution. Forty-four (35.2%) patients had an angiogram/CTA peri-operative and met the inclusion criteria. Seventeen subjects (38.6%) had a higher level of amputation. Of the 17 failures, 2 (11.8%) patients had no patent vessel runoff to the foot, 9 (52.9%) had one vessel, 4 (23.5%) had two vessels, and 2 (11.8%) had three vessels runoff. One vessel runoff to the foot yielded a high rate of poor outcomes (56.3%) defined as a higher level of amputation. Two or more vessels runoff to the foot had over 75% success of limb salvage with a TMA.

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.

Prevention of foot ulcers in persons with diabetes at risk of ulceration: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Prevention of foot ulcers in persons with diabetes is important to help reduce the substantial burden on both individual and health resources. A comprehensive analysis of reported interventions is needed to better inform healthcare professionals about effective prevention. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the effectiveness of interventions to prevent foot ulcers in persons with diabetes who are at risk thereof. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the available scientific literature in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane databases and trial registries for original research studies on preventative interventions. Both controlled and non-controlled studies were eligible for selection. Two independent reviewers assessed risk of bias of controlled studies and extracted data. A meta-analysis (using Mantel-Haenszel's statistical method and random effect models) was done when >1 RCT was available that met our criteria. Evidence statements, including the certainty of evidence, were formulated according to GRADE. RESULTS: From the 19,349 records screened, 40 controlled studies (of which 33 were Randomised Controlled Trials [RCTs]) and 103 non-controlled studies were included. We found moderate certainty evidence that temperature monitoring (5 RCTs; risk ratio [RR]: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.31-0.84) and pressure-optimised therapeutic footwear or insoles (2 RCTs; RR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.26-1.47) likely reduce the risk of plantar foot ulcer recurrence in people with diabetes at high risk. Further, we found low certainty evidence that structured education (5 RCTs; RR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.37-1.19), therapeutic footwear (3 RCTs; RR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.24-1.17), flexor tenotomy (1 RCT, 7 non-controlled studies, no meta-analysis), and integrated care (3 RCTs; RR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.58-1.06) may reduce the risk of foot ulceration in people with diabetes at risk for foot ulceration. CONCLUSIONS: Various interventions for persons with diabetes at risk for foot ulceration with evidence of effectiveness are available, including temperature monitoring (pressure-optimised) therapeutic footwear, structured education, flexor tenotomy, and integrated foot care. With hardly any new intervention studies published in recent years, more effort to produce high-quality RCTs is urgently needed to further improve the evidence base. This is especially relevant for educational and psychological interventions, for integrated care approaches for persons at high risk of ulceration, and for interventions specifically targeting persons at low-to-moderate risk of ulceration.

Guidelines on the prevention of foot ulcers in persons with diabetes (IWGDF 2023 update).

AIMS: This is the 2023 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot guideline on the prevention of foot ulcers in persons with diabetes, which updates the 2019 guideline. This guideline is targeted at clinicians and other healthcare professionals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology to devise clinical questions and critically important outcomes in the PICO format, to conduct a systematic review of the medical-scientific literature including, where appropriate, meta-analyses, and to write recommendations and their rationale. The recommendations are based on the quality of evidence found in the systematic review, expert opinion where (sufficient) evidence was not available, and a weighing of the desirable and undesirable effects of an intervention, as well as patient preferences, costs, equity, feasibility and applicability. RESULTS: We recommend screening a person with diabetes at very low risk of foot ulceration annually for the loss of protective sensation and peripheral artery disease, and screening persons at higher risk at higher frequencies for additional risk factors. For preventing a foot ulcer, educate persons at-risk about appropriate foot self-care, educate not to walk without suitable foot protection, and treat any pre-ulcerative lesion on the foot. Educate moderate-to-high risk people with diabetes to wear properly fitting, accommodative, therapeutic footwear, and consider coaching them to monitor foot skin temperature. Prescribe therapeutic footwear that has a demonstrated plantar pressure relieving effect during walking, to help prevent plantar foot ulcer recurrence. Consider advising people at low-to-moderate risk to undertake a, preferably supervised, foot-ankle exercise programme to reduce ulcer risk factors, and consider communicating that a total increase in weight-bearing activity of 1000 steps/day is likely safe with regards to risk of ulceration. In people with non-rigid hammertoe with pre-ulcerative lesion, consider flexor tendon tenotomy. We suggest not to use a nerve decompression procedure to help prevent foot ulcers. Provide integrated foot care for moderate-to-high-risk people with diabetes to help prevent (recurrence of) ulceration. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations should help healthcare professionals to provide better care for persons with diabetes at risk of foot ulceration, to increase the number of ulcer-free days and reduce the patient and healthcare burden of diabetes-related foot disease.

IWGDF/IDSA guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes-related foot infections (IWGDF/IDSA 2023).

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence-based guidelines on the management and prevention of diabetes-related foot diseases since 1999. The present guideline is an update of the 2019 IWGDF guideline on the diagnosis and management of foot infections in persons with diabetes mellitus. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used for the development of this guideline. This was structured around identifying clinically relevant questions in the P(A)ICO format, determining patient-important outcomes, systematically reviewing the evidence, assessing the certainty of the evidence, and finally moving from evidence to the recommendation. This guideline was developed for healthcare professionals involved in diabetes-related foot care to inform clinical care around patient-important outcomes. Two systematic reviews from 2019 were updated to inform this guideline, and a total of 149 studies (62 new) meeting inclusion criteria were identified from the updated search and incorporated in this guideline. Updated recommendations are derived from these systematic reviews, and best practice statements made where evidence was not available. Evidence was weighed in light of benefits and harms to arrive at a recommendation. The certainty of the evidence for some recommendations was modified in this update with a more refined application of the GRADE framework centred around patient important outcomes. This is highlighted in the rationale section of this update. A note is also made where the newly identified evidence did not alter the strength or certainty of evidence for previous recommendations. The recommendations presented here continue to cover various aspects of diagnosing soft tissue and bone infections, including the classification scheme for diagnosing infection and its severity. Guidance on how to collect microbiological samples, and how to process them to identify causative pathogens, is also outlined. Finally, we present the approach to treating foot infections in persons with diabetes, including selecting appropriate empiric and definitive antimicrobial therapy for soft tissue and bone infections; when and how to approach surgical treatment; and which adjunctive treatments may or may not affect the infectious outcomes of diabetes-related foot problems. We believe that following these recommendations will help healthcare professionals provide better care for persons with diabetes and foot infections, prevent the number of foot and limb amputations, and reduce the patient and healthcare burden of diabetes-related foot disease.

Interventions in the management of diabetes-related foot infections: A systematic review.

The optimal approaches to managing diabetic foot infections remain a challenge for clinicians. Despite an exponential rise in publications investigating different treatment strategies, the various agents studied generally produce comparable results, and high-quality data are scarce. In this systematic review, we searched the medical literature using the PubMed and Embase databases for published studies on the treatment of diabetic foot infections from 30 June 2018 to 30 June 2022. We combined this search with our previous literature search of a systematic review performed in 2020, in which the infection committee of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot searched the literature until June 2018. We defined the context of the literature by formulating clinical questions of interest, then developing structured clinical questions (Patients-Intervention-Control-Outcomes) to address these. We only included data from controlled studies of an intervention to prevent or cure a diabetic foot infection. Two independent reviewers selected articles for inclusion and then assessed their relevant outcomes and methodological quality. Our literature search identified a total of 5,418 articles, of which we selected 32 for full-text review. Overall, the newly available studies we identified since 2018 do not significantly modify the body of the 2020 statements for the interventions in the management of diabetes-related foot infections. The recent data confirm that outcomes in patients treated with the different antibiotic regimens for both skin and soft tissue infection and osteomyelitis of the diabetes-related foot are broadly equivalent across studies, with a few exceptions (tigecycline not non-inferior to ertapenem [±vancomycin]). The newly available data suggest that antibiotic therapy following surgical debridement for moderate or severe infections could be reduced to 10 days and to 3 weeks for osteomyelitis following surgical debridement of bone. Similar outcomes were reported in studies comparing primarily surgical and predominantly antibiotic treatment strategies in selected patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis. There is insufficient high-quality evidence to assess the effect of various recent adjunctive therapies, such as cold plasma for infected foot ulcers and bioactive glass for osteomyelitis. Our updated systematic review confirms a trend to a better quality of the most recent trials and the need for further well-designed trials to produce higher quality evidence to underpin our recommendations.

Healing rates and outcomes following closed transmetatarsal amputations: A systematic review and random effects meta-analysis of proportions.

Transmetatarsal amputation (TMA) is a common surgical procedure for addressing severe forefoot pathologies, such as peripheral vascular disease and diabetic foot infections. Variability in research methodologies and findings within the existing literature has hindered a comprehensive understanding of healing rates and complications following TMA. This meta-analysis and systematic review aims to consolidate available evidence, synthesising data from multiple studies to assess healing rates and complications associated with closed TMA procedures. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted for articles published from January 1st, 1988, to June 1st, 2023. Inclusion criteria comprised studies reporting healing rates in non-traumatic transmetatarsal amputation patients with more than 10 participants, excluding open TMAs. Two independent reviewers selected relevant studies, with disagreements resolved through discussion. Data extracted from eligible studies included patient demographics, healing rates, complications, and study quality. Among 22 studies encompassing 1569 transmetatarsal amputations, the pooled healing rate was 67.3%. Major amputation rates ranged from 0% to 55.6%, with a random-effects pooled rate of 23.9%. Revision rates varied from 0% to 36.4%, resulting in a pooled rate of 14.8%. 30-day mortality ranged from 0% to 9%, with a fixed-effects pooled rate of 2.6%. Post-operative infection rates ranged from 3.0% to 30.7%, yielding a random-effects pooled rate of 16.7%. Dehiscence rates ranged from 1.7% to 60.0%, resulting in a random-effects pooled rate of 28.8%. Future studies should aim for standardised reporting and assess the physiological and treatment factors influencing healing and complications.

IWGDF/IDSA Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Diabetes-related Foot Infections (IWGDF/IDSA 2023).

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence-based guidelines on the management and prevention of diabetes-related foot diseases since 1999. The present guideline is an update of the 2019 IWGDF guideline on the diagnosis and management of foot infections in persons with diabetes mellitus. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used for the development of this guideline. This was structured around identifying clinically relevant questions in the P(A)ICO format, determining patient-important outcomes, systematically reviewing the evidence, assessing the certainty of the evidence, and finally moving from evidence to the recommendation. This guideline was developed for healthcare professionals involved in diabetes-related foot care to inform clinical care around patient-important outcomes. Two systematic reviews from 2019 were updated to inform this guideline, and a total of 149 studies (62 new) meeting inclusion criteria were identified from the updated search and incorporated in this guideline. Updated recommendations are derived from these systematic reviews, and best practice statements made where evidence was not available. Evidence was weighed in light of benefits and harms to arrive at a recommendation. The certainty of the evidence for some recommendations was modified in this update with a more refined application of the GRADE framework centred around patient important outcomes. This is highlighted in the rationale section of this update. A note is also made where the newly identified evidence did not alter the strength or certainty of evidence for previous recommendations. The recommendations presented here continue to cover various aspects of diagnosing soft tissue and bone infections, including the classification scheme for diagnosing infection and its severity. Guidance on how to collect microbiological samples, and how to process them to identify causative pathogens, is also outlined. Finally, we present the approach to treating foot infections in persons with diabetes, including selecting appropriate empiric and definitive antimicrobial therapy for soft tissue and bone infections; when and how to approach surgical treatment; and which adjunctive treatments may or may not affect the infectious outcomes of diabetes-related foot problems. We believe that following these recommendations will help healthcare professionals provide better care for persons with diabetes and foot infections, prevent the number of foot and limb amputations, and reduce the patient and healthcare burden of diabetes-related foot disease.

The infected diabetes-related foot: Comparison of erythrocyte sedementation rate/albumin and C-reactive protein/albumin ratios with erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein to differentiate bone and soft tissue infections.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of C-reactive protein (CRP)/albumin, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)/albumin ratio, ESR, CRP and albumin to differentiate bone and soft tissue infection in persons with diabetes. We retrospectively evaluated 242 individuals admitted to hospital with diabetes-related foot infections (DFI). We categorised DFI cases as either bone (OM) or soft tissue infection based on bone culture and/or histology. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of CRP, ESR, albumin, CRP/albumin and ESR/albumin as biomarkers to diagnose OM in persons with diabetes. The median age was 53 years (74% male). There were 224 diabetes-related patients of which 125 had been diagnosed with osteomyelitis. The ESR/albumin and CRP/albumin ratios cut-points were >17.84 and >1.83, respectively. ESR/albumin and CRP/albumin ratios had similar diagnostic parameters: AUC (0.71, 0.71), sensitivity (70.0%, 57.0%), specificity (62.0%, 75.0%), positive predictive value (67.0%, 71.0%) and negative predictive value (66.0% and 71.0%). In contrast diagnostic efficiency of CRP and ESR were AUC 0.71 and 0.71, sensitivity (45.6%, 71.2%), specificity (85.5%, 60.7%), positive predictive value (70.0%, 65.9%) and negative predictive value (59.5%, 66.4%), respectively. When comparing area under the curves, the results showed that ESR/albumin was not significantly different to ESR alone (Delong test pvs ESR >0.1). Similarly, CRP/albumin was not significantly different to CRP alone (Delong test pvs CRP >0.1). In conclusion, ESR/albumin and CRP/albumin ratios provided comparable results as using ESR and CRP alone.

Medical mythology, misconceptions, and misinformation: does iodine impede wound healing?

INTRODUCTION: PI has been shown to be effective against a broad spectrum of bacteria and to be cytotoxic to a variety of cell types. Such findings led to the widespread belief that PI interferes with wound healing. OBJECTIVE: This article reviews laboratory studies, animal wound studies, and clinical studies that examine the efficacy and safety of iodine-based wound products in wound healing. METHODS: The authors searched PubMed and Scopus databases without time restrictions, and 62 articles were selected for complete evaluation. Fourteen RCTs and 5 comparative studies that evaluated PI and 15 RCTs that evaluated CI were included. RESULTS: In 63% (n = 12) of the PI studies, there was no difference between PI and controls and in 5% (n = 1) PI performed significantly better than the comparator. In 31% (n = 6), outcomes were better with controls than with PI. In the RCTs on CI, 64% (n = 9) of the studies found no difference between CI and controls. Thirty-five percent (n = 5) showed significantly positive influence of CI compared with controls. CONCLUSIONS: Both CI and PI appear to be safe, with no evidence that these products impede wound healing, are associated with more infections, or require more amputations compared with other modalities. PI can effectively be used for short periods of time, and CI is an effective wound care modality for chronic wounds.