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.

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.

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.

Charcot arthropathy outcomes after early referral to a regional tertiary care foot clinic.

BACKGROUND: Community physicians may not encounter Charcot arthropathy frequently, and its symptoms and signs may be nonspecific. Patients often have a delay of several months before receiving a formal diagnosis and referral for specialty care. However, limited Canadian data are available. We evaluated the clinical history, treatment and outcomes of patients treated for Charcot arthropathy after prompt referral and diagnosis. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of 76 patients with diabetes (78 feet) who received nonoperative treatment for Charcot arthropathy in a specialty foot clinic between Jan. 20, 2009, and Mar. 26, 2018. Patients were referred to the foot clinic by community physicians for evaluation or were pre-existing patients at the foot clinic with new-onset Charcot arthropathy. RESULTS: Of the 78 feet included in our analyses, 52 feet (67%) were evaluated initially by a community physician and referred to the foot clinic, where they were seen within 3 ± 5 weeks. The remaining 26 feet (33%) were already being treated at the foot clinic. Most feet had swelling, erythema, warmth, a palpable pulse and loss of protective sensation. Ulcers were present initially in 23 feet (29%). Sixty-four feet (82%) with Charcot arthropathy were in Eichenholtz classification stage 1 and most had midfoot involvement. Nonoperative treatment included total contact casting (60 feet, 77%). Mean duration of nonoperative treatment until resolution for 55 feet (71%) was 6 ± 5 months. Surgery was performed on 20 feet (26%) for the treatment of infection and recurrent ulcer associated with deformity, including 6 (8%) lower limb amputations. CONCLUSION: Charcot arthropathy may resolve in most feet with early referral and nonoperative treatment, but remains a limb-threatening condition.

Offloading devices for neuropathic foot ulcers in adult persons with type 1 or type 2 diabetes: a rapid review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Healing time for neuropathic planter foot ulcers (NPFUs) in persons with diabetes may be reduced through use of non-removable fiberglass total contact casting (F-TCC) compared with removable cast walkers (RCWs), although the evidence base is still growing. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a rapid review and systematically searched for, and critically assessed, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of F-TCC versus RCW, focusing on the time to ulcer healing in adult persons (18+ years) with NPFUs and type 1 or type 2 diabetes. We meta-analysed the mean differences and associated 95% CIs using an inverse variance, random-effects model. We also conducted a trial sequential analysis (TSA) to assess if the available evidence is up to the required information size for a robust conclusion. We assessed and quantified statistical heterogeneity between the included studies using the I2 statistic. RESULTS: Out of 102 retrieved citations, five RCTs met the eligibility criteria. Participants' inclusion in relation to stage of ulcer was highly variable as was peripheral neuropathy complicating comparisons. F-TCC appeared to present a shorter ulcer healing time (-5.42 days, 95% CI -9.66 days to -1.17 days; I2 9.9%; 5 RCTs; 169 participants) compared with RCW. This finding was supported by the TSA. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence from RCTs to suggest that F-TCC has a shorter ulcer healing time compared with RCW among adults with diabetic NPFUs. Properly designed and conducted RCTs are still required for a stronger evidence base.

Absence of transmission of NDM and OXA-48 carbapenemase genes in a chronic care unit of a long-term care facility.

Infection prevention and control measures are used to contain outbreaks of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. We report the absence of transmission of Klebsiella pneumoniae carrying New Delhi metallo-ß-lactamase and oxacillinase-48 genes among 19 screened contacts of an index case after 14 months of routine practices in a long-term care facility.

A 42-year-old man with nodular skin lesions.

Nodular skin lesions are infrequently reported among patients with syphilis. We describe a 42-year-old man with secondary syphilis who presented with a nodular cutaneous eruption involving his neck, upper chest, back, arms, and legs. Because there was uncertainty regarding the diagnosis at presentation, the patient underwent a punch biopsy of one of the lesions. Spirochetes were not seen with a Steiner silver stain, but they were visualized on subsequent immunohistochemical staining. The diagnosis was confirmed with serology, and the patient responded well to treatment with benzathine penicillin G. Given the current increase in syphilis cases across North America, it is critical that clinicians become familiar with some of the less common dermatologic manifestations of this infection so that the diagnosis is entertained and appropriate serologic testing is ordered in a timely fashion.

Les lésions nodulaires ne sont pas fréquentes chez les patients atteints de syphilis. Les auteurs décrivent le cas d'un homme de 42 ans atteint de syphilis secondaire qui a consulté à cause d'une éruption nodulaire lui touchant le cou, le haut du thorax, le dos, les bras et les jambes. Puisque le diagnostic était incertain, le patient a subi une biopsie à l'emporte-pièce de l'une des lésions. Aucunes spirochètes n'ont été observées au moyen d'une coloration à l'argent Steiner, mais elles ont été visualisées à la coloration immunohistochimique subséquente. La sérologie a confirmé le diagnostic, et le patient a bien répondu au traitement à la pénicille G benzathine. Étant donné l'augmentation des cas de syphilis en Amérique du Nord, il est essentiel que les cliniciens se familiarisent avec quelques manifestations dermatologiques plus rares de cette infection, afin que ce diagnostic soit envisagé et que le bon test sérologique soit effectué rapidement.

Rectal Perforation by an Intrauterine Device Leading to Fatal Intra-Abdominal Sepsis and Necrotizing Fasciitis.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal injury from an intrauterine device (IUD) is rare but may lead to major complications. CASE: A 55-year-old woman presented to a tertiary care hospital with 4 days of generalized weakness, confusion, dysuria, and lower back pain. She provided a vague history of an unsuccessful attempt to remove an IUD 30 years prior. A computed tomography scan demonstrated an IUD in the rectal lumen, with gluteal and pelvic gas and fluid collections. Emergency surgery found necrotizing fasciitis. Despite multiple debridements, sigmoidoscopic IUD removal, and long-term intravenous antibiotics, the patient died from sepsis and multiorgan failure. CONCLUSION: IUDs require proper monitoring and timely removal to prevent potential complications associated with organ perforation.

Ocular syphilis in an immunocompetent man.

A healthy 47-year-old immunocompetent man from Northern Canada presented for ophthalmologic assessment after experiencing one month of right-sided photopsias, floaters, and a right lower nasal quadrant visual field defect. Optic disc swelling, vitritis, chorioretinitis, peripheral retinal infiltrates and hemorrhages were noted in the right eye. A broad right inferior arcuate and nasal visual field defect were also present. Fluorescein angiography of the right retina showed dilated disc vessels and staining of the optic disc. Treponemal antibody testing, using chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay, was highly positive; this was followed by a Venereal Disease Research Laboratory (VDRL) test with a titre of 1:32 and confirmed by Treponema pallidum particle agglutination (TP-PA) test. Testing did not demonstrate any co-infections. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis revealed strong reactivity (4+) to the Treponemal antibody by immunofluorescence antibody absorbed (FTA-ABS) test and non-reactivity by CSF VDRL test. Syphilis PCR of CSF was negative. A diagnosis of neurosyphilis was made. He was treated with ceftriaxone 2 grams IV q24h for 14 days. The vitritis gradually improved. Familiarity with syphilis diagnostics is becoming increasingly important, especially given its recent resurgence amongst several at risk groups. This patient's case highlights that non-reactive CSF VDRL is not a reliable test in the context of positive serum results and a compatible clinical picture. CSF Treponemal tests such as TP-PA and FTA-ABS offer higher sensitivity than non-treponemal tests such as VDRL in the context of CNS involvement and ocular syphilis.

Interventions in the management of infection in the foot in diabetes: 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 as of June 2018. This systematic review is an update of previous reviews, the first of which was undertaken in 2010 and the most recent in 2014, by the infection committee of the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot. We defined the context of literature by formulating clinical questions of interest, then developing structured clinical questions (PICOs) 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 the methodological quality. Our literature search identified a total of 15 327 articles, of which we selected 48 for full-text review; we added five more studies discovered by means other than the systematic literature search. Among these selected articles were 11 high-quality studies published in the last 4 years and two Cochrane systematic reviews. Overall, the outcomes in patients treated with the different antibiotic regimens for both skin and soft tissue infection and osteomyelitis of the diabetic foot were broadly equivalent across studies, except that treatment with tigecycline was inferior to ertapenem (±vancomycin). Similar outcomes were also 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 adjunctive therapies, such as negative pressure wound therapy, topical ointments or hyperbaric oxygen, on infection related outcomes of the diabetic foot. In general, the quality of more recent trial designs are better in past years, but there is still a great need for further well-designed trials to produce higher quality evidence to underpin our recommendations.

Diagnosis of infection in the foot in 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 potentially mortality and present formidable challenges in surgical and antimicrobial treatment. METHODS: In June 2018, we searched the literature using PuEbMed and EMBASE for published studies on the diagnosis of diabetic foot infection. On the basis of predetermined criteria, we reviewed prospective controlled, as well as noncontrolled, studies in any language, seeking translations for those not in English. We then developed evidence statements on the basis of the included papers. RESULTS: From the 4242 records screened, we selected 35 papers that met our inclusion criteria. The quality of all but one 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 scheme correlates with the patient's likelihood of ulcer healing, of lower extremity amputation, and risk of death. Elevated levels of selected serum inflammatory markers are supportive, but not diagnostic, of soft tissue or bone infection. In patients with suspected diabetic foot osteomyelitis, both a positive probe-to-bone test and an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate are strongly associated with its presence. 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. Plain X-ray remains the first-line imaging examination when there is suspicion of diabetic foot osteomyelitis, but advanced imaging methods help in cases when either the diagnosis or the localization of infection is uncertain. CONCLUSION: The results of this first reported systematic review on the diagnosis of diabetic foot infections provide some guidance for clinicians, but there is a need for more prospective controlled studies of high quality.

Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of foot infection in persons with diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update).

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence-based guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease since 1999. This guideline is on the diagnosis and treatment of foot infection in persons with diabetes and updates the 2015 IWGDF infection guideline. On the basis of patient, intervention, comparison, outcomes (PICOs) developed by the infection committee, in conjunction with internal and external reviewers and consultants, and on systematic reviews the committee conducted on the diagnosis of infection (new) and treatment of infection (updated from 2015), we offer 27 recommendations. These cover various aspects of diagnosing soft tissue and bone infection, including the classification scheme for diagnosing infection and its severity. Of note, we have updated this scheme for the first time since we developed it 15 years ago. We also review the microbiology of diabetic foot infections, including how to collect samples and to process them to identify causative pathogens. Finally, we discuss the approach to treating diabetic foot infections, including selecting appropriate empiric and definitive antimicrobial therapy for soft tissue and for bone infections, when and how to approach surgical treatment, and which adjunctive treatments we think are or are not useful for the infectious aspects of diabetic foot problems. For this version of the guideline, we also updated four tables and one figure from the 2016 guideline. We think that following the principles of diagnosing and treating diabetic foot infections outlined in this guideline can help clinicians to provide better care for these patients.

Peripheral Artery Disease: Its Adverse Consequences With and Without CKD.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVES: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a potent risk factor for macrovascular disease and death. Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is more common in patients with CKD and is associated with lower-limb complications and mortality. We sought to compare the prevalence of PAD in and outside the setting of kidney disease and examine how PAD affects the risk for adverse health outcomes, specifically lower-limb complications, cardiovascular events, and survival. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 453,573 adult residents of Manitoba with at least 1 serum creatinine measurement between 2007 and 2014. EXPOSURE: PAD defined by hospital discharge diagnosis codes and medical claims. OUTCOMES: All-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, and lower-limb complications, including foot ulcers and nontraumatic amputations. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Survival analysis using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: The prevalence of PAD in our study population was 4.5%, and patients with PAD were older, were more likely to be male, and had a higher burden of comorbid conditions, including diabetes and CKD. PAD was associated with higher risks for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, and lower-limb complications in patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 60mL/min/1.73m2, those with CKD GFR categories 3 to 5 (G3-G5), and those treated by dialysis (CKD G5D). Although HRs for PAD were lower in the CKD population, event rates were higher as compared with those with eGFR≥60mL/min/1.73m2. In particular, compared with patients with eGFR≥60mL/min/1.73m2 and without PAD, patients with CKD G5D had 10- and 12-fold higher risks for lower-limb complications, respectively (adjusted HRs of 10.36 [95% CI, 8.83-12.16] and 12.02 [95% CI, 9.58-15.08] for those without and with PAD, respectively), and an event rate of 75/1,000 patient-years. LIMITATIONS: Potential undercounting of PAD and complications using administrative codes and the limited ability to examine quality-of-care indicators for PAD. CONCLUSIONS: PAD is more common in patients with CKD G3-G5 and G5D compared with those with eGFR≥60mL/min/1.73m2 and frequently leads to lower-limb complications. Medical interventions and care pathways specifically designed to slow or prevent the development of lower-limb complications in this population are urgently needed.

Is There a Role for Measuring Synovial Biomarkers for Diagnosis of Infected Total Ankle Arthroplasty (TAA)?

RECOMMENDATION: Based on the hip and knee arthroplasty literature, measuring synovial biomarkers may play a role in the diagnosis of infected total ankle arthroplasty (TAA). The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in the setting of a TAA can be confirmed with cultures, provided that a plausible pathogen is recovered in the context of a compatible clinical picture. In the absence of a positive culture, synovial biomarker analysis may help in establishing the diagnosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Moderate. DELEGATE VOTE: Agree: 92%, Disagree: 8%, Abstain: 0% (Super Majority, Strong Consensus).

During Draping for Total Ankle Arthroplasty (TAA), Should the Foot Be Prepped Into the Surgical Field or Be Covered?

RECOMMENDATION: There is insufficient data demonstrating any advantage or disadvantage to covering the toes during total ankle arthroplasty (TAA). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Moderate. DELEGATE VOTE: Agree: 100%, Disagree: 0%, Abstain: 0% (Unanimous, Strongest Consensus).

What Is the Optimal (Type, Dose and Route of Administration) Antibiotic Treatment for Patients With Infected Total Ankle Arthroplasty (TAA)?

RECOMMENDATION: Though literature specific to total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) is lacking, based on recommendations for the management of hip and knee arthroplasties, the choice of antibiotic should be made based on the identification and sensitivities of the infecting organism(s). Dosing, frequency, and route of administration of antibiotics may be determined in consultation with an infectious disease specialist and by taking into account the patient's weight and comorbidities, such as renal impairment and the antibiogram. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Consensus. DELEGATE VOTE: Agree: 100%, Disagree: 0%, Abstain: 0% (Unanimous, Strongest Consensus).