Lower extremity amputation rates in patients with chronic kidney disease: A database study comparing patients with and without diabetes mellitus.

Lower extremity amputation (LEA) is one of the most feared consequences of diabetes mellitus (DM). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of DM on LEA rates in patients at various stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD). A commercially available de-identified database was searched for patients undergoing LEA and for CKD patients, from 2010 to 2023. Patients with DM and patients without DM who were followed for at least 5 years were included. LEA rates were then compared for patients at all 5 CKD stages in patients with and without diabetes. Rates of all LEA were found to be significantly higher at all CKD stages for patients with diabetes (overall, minor and major LEA). Compared to patients without DM who have CKD stage 5 (end stage renal disease), patients with DM and CKD stage 5 have a 30 fold increased likelihood of undergoing overall LEA [OR 30.2 (24.48-37.19), p < 0.001], 29 fold increased likelihood of undergoing minor LEA [28.9i (22.91-36.35), p < 0.001] and 40 times fold increased likelihood of undergoing major LEA [40.1 (26.59-60.42), p < 0.001]. For all stages of CKD, independent of diabetes status, minor LEA were performed with greater frequency than major LEA. In patients with DM, LEA rates significantly increased with CKD progression between stages 2-5 with a substantial jump between stages 4 and 5 [OR 2.6 (CI 2.49-2.74), p < 0.001]. However, CKD progression between stages 1 and 2 was not significantly associated with increased LEA rates (OR 1.1 (CI 0.92-1.21), p = 0.24) in patients with diabetes. Patients with comorbid diabetes have elevated risk for LEA at all stages of CKD compared to those without diabetes.

Does the use of DACC-coated dressings improve clinical outcomes for hard to heal wounds: A systematic review.

Reports of overuse and antimicrobial resistance have fuelled some clinicians to adopt alternative wound dressings termed to be non-medicated or non-antimicrobials, which still claim antimicrobial or antibacterial activity. In this PROSPERO-registered systematic review, we evaluated the in vivo clinical evidence for the effectiveness of DACC-coated dressings in chronic, hard to heal wound-related outcomes. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Framework was adopted as the template in constructing this systematic review. The PICO format (Population [or patients], Intervention, Comparison [control], Outcome/s) was used to identify key clinical questions in determining patient outcomes under two domains (infection control and wound healing). A systematic search was performed in PubMed, OVID, Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries and data sources from independent committees. Abstracts of all studies were screened independently by two reviewers, with six further reviewers independently assessing records proceeding to full review. The authors rated the quality of evidence for each of the outcomes critical to decision making. After excluding duplicates, 748 records were screened from the databases, and 13 records were sought for full review. After full review, we excluded a further three records, leaving ten records for data extraction. Three records were narrative reviews, three systematic reviews, two prospective non-comparative before/after studies, one prospective head-to-head comparator cohort study and one retrospective head-to-head comparator cohort study. No RCTs or case versus control studies were identified. The overall quality of clinical evidence for the use of DACC-coated dressing to improve wound infection and wound healing outcomes was assessed as very low. There is an urgent unmet need to perform appropriately designed RCTs or case-control studies. The extracted data provide no clarity and have limited to no evidence to support that using a DACC-coated dressing improves wound infection or wound healing outcomes. Further, there is no evidence to suggest this therapy is either superior to standard of wound care or equivocal to topical antimicrobial agents in the management of infected hard to heal wounds.

Does complete resection of infected bone improve clinical outcomes in patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis?

The objective of the study was to compare outcomes in patients with complete surgical resection versus partial resection of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (OM). A post hoc analysis of 171 patients with OM was performed using data from two randomized clinical trials. OM was confirmed with bone culture or histopathology. Surgical culture specimens were obtained from resected bone and sent for histopathology and microbiology. Residual osteomyelitis (RO) was defined as a positive resected margin on culture or histopathology. No residual osteomyelitis (NRO) was defined as no growth from bone culture and no histopathological inflammation in the biopsy of the resection margin. Data from the 12-month follow-up were used to determine clinical outcomes. During the index hospitalization, NRO patients had significantly shorter duration of antibiotic therapy (NRO 21.0, 13.0-38.0 vs. RO 37.0, 20.8-50.0, p <0.01) and more amputations than patients with RO (NRO 89.9% vs. RO 60.9%, p <0.01). During the 12-month follow-up, patients with NRO also had significantly shorter duration of antibiotic therapy (NRO 42, 21.0-66.5 vs. RO 50.5, 35.0-75.0, p = 0.02). During the 12-month follow-up, there was no difference in ulceration at the same site (NRO 3.7%, RO 4.3% p = 0.85), hospitalization (NRO 32.6%, RO 34.8%, p = 0.76), total re-infections (NRO 25.3%, RO 29.3%, p = 0.56), re-infection with osteomyelitis (NRO 13.3% vs. 13.5%, p = 0.36), amputation (NRO 8.8%, RO 5.4%, p = 0.86) and time to wound healing in days (NRO 94, 41.0-365 vs. RO 106, 42.8-365, p = 0.77). Successful treatment of osteomyelitis was achieved by 86.7% and 86.5% of patients. During the index hospitalization, patients with no residual osteomyelitis had more amputations and were treated with antibiotics for a shorter duration. During the 12-month follow-up, patients with no residual osteomyelitis had shorter durations of antibiotics. There were no differences in re-infection, amputation, re-ulceration or hospitalization. Level of evidence: 1.

Residual diabetic foot osteomyelitis after surgery leads to poor clinical outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the clinical outcomes in patients with and without residual osteomyelitis (ROM) after surgical bone resection for diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO). We completed a systematic literature search using PubMed, Scopus, and Embase using keywords DFO, Residual OM (ROM), and positive bone margins. The study outcomes included wound healing, antibiotic duration, amputation, and re-infection. Five hundred and thirty patients were included in the analysis; 319 had no residual osteomyelitis (NROM), and 211 had ROM. There was not a significant difference in the proportion of wounds that healed 0.6 (p = 0.1, 95% confidence intervals [95% CI] 0.3-1.3). The risk of infection was 2.0 times higher (OR = 2.0, p = 0.02, 95% CI 1.1-3.4), and the risk of amputation was 4.3 times higher (OR = 4.3, p = 0.0001, 95% CI 2.4-7.6) in patients with ROM. Patients with ROM received antibiotics significantly longer. The mean difference was 16.3 days (p = 0.02, 95% CI 11.1-21.1).

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in diabetic and non-diabetic foot infections.

To identify the incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection, reinfection and clinical outcomes. Four hundred forty-six patients that were admitted to the hospital with moderate or severe foot infections were retrospectively reviewed. Tissue and bone cultures were obtained from the index hospital admission. Conversion was defined as methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus in the first culture and subsequently MRSA when there was a reinfection. The incidence of MRSA was 7.8% (n = 35), with no significant difference between soft tissue infections (7.7%) and osteomyelitis (8.0%). MRSA incidence was 9.4 times higher in non-diabetics (23.8% vs. 3.2%, p = <0.01). The incidence of reinfection was 40.8% (n = 182). Conversion to MRSA was seen in 2.2% (n = 4) total, occurring in 5.4%. Non-diabetics were 20.1 times more likely to have MRSA reinfection than people with diabetes (28.6% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001). MRSA patients had a higher proportion of healed wounds (82.4% vs. 69.3%, p = 0.02). There were no differences in other clinical outcomes in MRSA vs. other infections in reinfection (28.6% vs. 24.3%, p = 0.11), amputation (48.6% vs. 52.0%, p = 0.69) or hospitalization (28.6% vs. 42.6, p = 0.11). The incidence of MRSA for the first infection (7.8%), reinfection (6.0%) and conversion to MRSA (2.2%) was low. MRSA was 9.4 times more common in people without diabetes.

Development of a Core Outcome Set for Studies Assessing Interventions for Diabetes-Related Foot Ulceration.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes affects 537 million people globally, with 34% expected to develop foot ulceration in their lifetime. Diabetes-related foot ulceration causes strain on health care systems worldwide, necessitating provision of high-quality evidence to guide their management. Given heterogeneity of reported outcomes, a core outcome set (COS) was developed to standardize outcome measures in studies assessing treatments for diabetes-related foot ulceration. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The COS was developed using Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) methodology. A systematic review and patient interviews generated a long list of outcomes that were rated by patients and experts using a nine-point Likert scale (from 1 [not important] to 9 [critical]) in the first round of the Delphi survey. Based on predefined criteria, outcomes without consensus were reprioritized in a second Delphi round. Critical outcomes and those without consensus after two Delphi rounds were discussed in the consensus meeting where the COS was ratified. RESULTS: The systematic review and patient interviews generated 103 candidate outcomes. The two consecutive Delphi rounds were completed by 336 and 176 respondents, resulting in an overall second round response rate of 52%. Of 37 outcomes discussed in the consensus meeting (22 critical and 15 without consensus after the second round), 8 formed the COS: wound healing, time to healing, new/recurrent ulceration, infection, major amputation, minor amputation, health-related quality of life, and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed COS for studies assessing treatments for diabetes-related foot ulceration was developed using COMET methodology. Its adoption by the research community will facilitate assessment of comparative effectiveness of current and evolving interventions.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.