Search

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has been publishing evidence-based guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease since 1999. This publication represents a new guideline addressing the use of classifications of diabetic foot ulcers in routine clinical practice and reviews those which have been published. We only consider systems of classification used for active diabetic foot ulcers and do not include those that might be used to define risk of future ulceration. The guidelines are based on a review of the available literature and on expert opinion leading to the identification of eight key factors judged to contribute most to clinical outcomes. Classifications are graded on the number of key factors included as well as on internal and external validation and the use for which a classification is intended. Key factors judged to contribute to the scoring of classifications are of three types: patient related (end-stage renal failure), limb-related (peripheral artery disease and loss of protective sensation), and ulcer-related (area, depth, site, single, or multiple and infection). Particular systems considered for each of the following five clinical situations: (a) communication among health professionals, (b) predicting the outcome of an individual ulcer, (c) as an aid to clinical decision-making for an individual case, (d) assessment of a wound, with/without infection, and peripheral artery disease (assessment of perfusion and potential benefit from revascularisation), and (d) audit of outcome in local, regional, or national populations. We recommend: (a) for communication among health professionals the use of the SINBAD system (that includes Site, Ischaemia, Neuropathy, Bacterial Infection and Depth); (b) no existing classification for predicting outcome of an individual ulcer; (c) the Infectious Diseases Society of America/IWGDF (IDSA/IWGDF) classification for assessment of infection; (d) the WIfI (Wound, Ischemia, and foot Infection) system for the assessment of perfusion and the likely benefit of revascularisation; and (e) the SINBAD classification for the audit of outcome of populations.

Classification and scoring systems can help both clinical management and audit outcomes of routine care. The aim of this study was to assess published systems of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) to determine which should be recommended for a given clinical purpose. Published classifications had to have been validated in populations of > 75% people with diabetes and a foot ulcer. Each study was assessed for internal and external validity and reliability. Eight key factors associated with failure to heal were identified from large clinical series and each classification was scored on the number of these key factors included. Classifications were then arranged according to their proposed purpose into one or more of four groups: (a) aid communication between health professionals, (b) predict clinical outcome of individual ulcers, (c) aid clinical management decision making for an individual case, and (d) audit to compare outcome in different populations. Thirty-seven classification systems were identified of which 18 were excluded for not being validated in a population of >75% DFUs. The included 19 classifications had different purposes and were derived from different populations. Only six were developed in multicentre studies, just 13 were externally validated, and very few had evaluated reliability.Classifications varied in the number (4 - 30), and definition of individual items and the diagnostic tools required. Clinical outcomes were not standardized but included ulcer-free survival, ulcer healing, hospitalization, limb amputation, mortality, and cost. Despite the limitations, there was sufficient evidence to make recommendations on the use of particular classifications for the indications listed above.

In patients with diabetes, foot ulceration and peripheral artery disease (PAD), it is often difficult to determine whether, when and how to revascularise the affected lower extremity. The presence of PAD is a major risk factor for non-healing and yet clinical outcomes of revascularisation are not necessarily related to technical success. The International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot updated systematic review on the effectiveness of revascularisation of the ulcerated foot in patients with diabetes and PAD is comprised of 64 studies describing >13,000 patients. Amongst 60 case series and 4 non-randomised controlled studies, we summarised clinically relevant outcomes and found them to be broadly similar between patients treated with open versus endovascular therapy. Following endovascular revascularisation, the 1 year and 2 year limb salvage rates were 80% (IQR 78-82%) and 78% (IQR 75-83%), whereas open therapy was associated with rates of 85% (IQR 80-90%) at 1 year and 87% (IQR 85-88%) at 2 years, however these results were based on a varying combination of studies and cannot therefore be interpreted as cumulative. Overall, wound healing was achieved in a median of 60% of patients (IQR 50-69%) at 1 year in those treated by endovascular or surgical therapy, and the major amputation rate of endovascular versus open therapy was 2% vs 5% at 30 days, 10% vs 9% at 1 year and 13% vs 9% at 2 years. For both strategies, overall mortality was found to be high, with 2% (1-6%) peri-operative (or 30 day) mortality, rising sharply to 13% (9-23%) at 1 year, 29% (19-48%) at 2 years and 47% (39-71%) at 5 years. Both the angiosome concept (revascularisation directly to the area of tissue loss via its main feeding artery) or indirect revascularisation through collaterals, appear to be equally effective strategies for restoring perfusion.Overall, the available data do not allow us to recommend one method of revascularisation over the other and more studies are required to determine the best revascularisation approach in diabetic foot ulceration.

Recommendations Examine a patient with diabetes annually for the presence of peripheral artery disease (PAD); this should include, at a minimum, taking a history and palpating foot pulses. (GRADE strength of recommendation: strong; quality of evidence: low) Evaluate a patient with diabetes and a foot ulcer for the presence of PAD. Determine, as part of this examination, ankle or pedal Doppler arterial waveforms; measure both ankle systolic pressure and systolic ankle brachial index (ABI). (strong; low) We recommend the use of bedside non-invasive tests to exclude PAD. No single modality has been shown to be optimal. Measuring ABI (with

Non-invasive tests for the detection of peripheral artery disease (PAD) among individuals with diabetes mellitus are important to estimate the risk of amputation, ulceration, wound healing and the presence of cardiovascular disease, yet there are no consensus recommendations to support a particular diagnostic modality over another and to evaluate the performance of index non-invasive diagnostic tests against reference standard imaging techniques (magnetic resonance angiography, computed tomography angiography, digital subtraction angiography and colour duplex ultrasound) for the detection of PAD among patients with diabetes. Two reviewers independently screened potential studies for inclusion and extracted study data. Eligible studies evaluated an index test for PAD against a reference test. An assessment of methodological quality was performed using the quality assessment for diagnostic accuracy studies instrument. Of the 6629 studies identified, ten met the criteria for inclusion. In these studies, the patients had a median age of 60-74 years and a median duration of diabetes of 9-24 years. Two studies reported exclusively on patients with symptomatic (ulcerated/infected) feet, two on patients with asymptomatic (intact) feet only, and the remaining six on patients both with and without foot ulceration. Ankle brachial index (ABI) was the most widely assessed index test. Overall, the positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of an ABI threshold

The confluence of several chronic conditions--in particular ageing, peripheral artery disease, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease--has created a global wave of lower limbs at risk for major amputation. While frequently asymptomatic or not lifestyle limiting, at least 1% of the population has peripheral artery disease of sufficient severity to be limb threatening. To avoid the critical error of failing to diagnose ischaemia, all patients with diabetic foot ulcers and gangrene should routinely undergo physiologic evaluation of foot perfusion. Ankle brachial index is useful when measurable, but may be falsely elevated or not obtainable in as many as 30% of patients with diabetic foot ulcers primarily because of medial calcinosis. Toe pressures and skin perfusion pressures are applicable to such patients.

Objective This study aimed to quantify the impact of an integrated diabetic foot surgical service on outcomes and changes in surgical volume and focus. Methods We abstracted registry data from 48 consecutive months at a single institution, evaluating all patients with diabetic foot complications requiring surgery or vascular intervention, and compared outcomes in the 24 months before and after integrating podiatric surgery with vascular surgical limbsalvage service. Results The service performed 2923 operations; 790 (27.0%) were related to treatment of diabetic foot complications in 374 patients. Of these, 502 were classified as non-vascular diabetic foot surgery and 288 were vascular interventions. Urgent surgery was significantly reduced after team implementation (77.7% vs 48.5%, p

In several large recent observational studies, peripheral arterial disease (PAD) was present in up to 50% of the patients with a diabetic foot ulcer and was an independent risk factor for amputation. The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot therefore established a multidisciplinary working group to evaluate the effectiveness of revascularization of the ulcerated foot in patients with diabetes and PAD. A systematic search was performed for therapies to revascularize the ulcerated foot in patients with diabetes and PAD from 1980June 2010. Only clinically relevant outcomes were assessed. The research conformed to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodological scores were assigned. A total of 49 papers were eligible for full text review. There were no randomized controlled trials, but there were three nonrandomized studies with a control group. The major outcomes following endovascular or open bypass surgery were broadly similar among the studies. Following open surgery, the 1-year limb salvage rates were a median of 85% (interquartile range of 8090%), and following endovascular revascularization, these rates were 78% (70.585.5%). At 1-year follow-up, 60% or more of ulcers had healed following revascularization with either open bypass surgery or endovascular revascularization. Studies appeared to demonstrate improved rates of limb salvage associated with revascularization compared with the results of medically treated patients in the literature. There were insufficient data to recommend one method of revascularization over another. There is a real need for standardized reporting of baseline demographic data, severity of disease and outcome reporting in this group of patients. Copyright (C) 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWDGF) has produced in 2011 a guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of peripheral arterial disease in patients with diabetes and a foot ulcer. This document, together with a systematic review that provided the background information on management, was produced by a multidisciplinary working group of experts in the field and was endorsed by the IWDGF. This progress report is based on these two documents and earlier consensus texts of the IWDGF on the diagnosis and management of diabetic foot ulcers. Its aim is to give the clinician clear guidance on when and how to diagnose peripheral arterial disease in patients with diabetes and a foot ulcer and when and which treatment modalities should be considered, taking both risks and benefits into account.

The use of endovascular therapy (EVT) for lower extremity atherosclerosis is markedly increasing while open surgical bypass is in decline. The results of EVT for critical limb ischaemia (CLI) are difficult to evaluate, especially for patients with diabetes. To date, only one randomized, prospective trial has been published comparing EVT with open bypass for CLI. Although early costs and outcomes were equivalent or superior for EVT, after 2 years, surgery was associated with a significantly reduced risk of future amputation and death. Approximately, 40-50% of diabetic patients with CLI can be initially treated with EVT. Patients with Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) A and B lesions should be treated endoluminally. EVT should be used with caution in patients with TASC C and D lesions; however, in selected patients, particularly if vein conduit is lacking and life expectancy is short, EVT is not unreasonable. For low-to-moderate risk patients with TASC C or D lesions, extensive tibial disease, and suitable vein conduit, surgical bypass remains the best limb preservation option. The primary therapeutic goals are relief of rest pain, healing of ischaemic lesions, and maintenance of functional status. Haemodynamic assessment is critical following both open and EVT for CLI and aids in determining the need for further revascularization; additional interventions are required in 20-30% of CLI patients depending on the degree of ischaemia, anatomical disease extent, and mode of initial therapy. At the University of Arizona, we currently recommend that TASC A and B CLI patients undergo EVT first. TASC C and D patients should undergo bypass unless available conduit is poor, surgical risk is prohibitive, or life expectancy is limited. CLI is a serious end-of-life condition given the sobering realization that only 50-55% of CLI patients are alive with an intact limb 5 years after initial presentation.

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