Evaluation and Management of Diabetes-related Foot Infections

Diabetic foot is a severe public health issue, yet rare studies investigated its global epidemiology. Here we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis through searching PubMed, EMBASE, ISI Web of science, and Cochrane database. We found that that global diabetic foot ulcer prevalence was 6.3% (95%CI: 5.4-7.3%), which was higher in males (4.5%, 95%CI: 3.7-5.2%) than in females (3.5%, 95%CI: 2.8-4.2%), and higher in type 2 diabetic patients (6.4%, 95%CI: 4.6-8.1%) than in type 1 diabetics (5.5%, 95%CI: 3.2-7.7%). North America had the highest prevalence (13.0%, 95%CI: 10.0-15.9%), Oceania had the lowest (3.0%, 95% CI: 0.9-5.0%), and the prevalence in Asia, Europe, and Africa were 5.5% (95%CI: 4.6-6.4%), 5.1% (95%CI: 4.1-6.0%), and 7.2% (95%CI: 5.1-9.3%), respectively. Australia has the lowest (1.5%, 95%CI: 0.7-2.4%) and Belgium has the highest prevalence (16.6%, 95%CI: 10.7-22.4%), followed by Canada (14.8%, 95%CI: 9.4-20.1%) and USA (13.0%, 95%CI: 8.3-17.7%). The patients with diabetic foot ulcer were older, had a lower body mass index, longer diabetic duration, and had more hypertension, diabetic retinopathy, and smoking history than patients without diabetic foot ulceration. Our results provide suggestions for policy makers in deciding preventing strategy of diabetic foot ulceration in the future. Key messages Global prevalence of diabetic foot is 6.3% (95%CI: 5.4-7.3%), and the prevalence in North America, Asia, Europe, Africa and Oceania was 13.0% (95%CI: 10.0-15.9%), 5.5% (95%CI: 4.6-6.4%), 5.1% (95%CI: 4.1-6.0%), 7.2% (95%CI: 5.1-9.3%), and 3.0% (95% CI: 0.9-5.0%). Diabetic foot was more prevalent in males than in females, and more prevalent in type 2 diabetic foot patients than in type 1 diabetic foot patients. The patients with diabetic foot were older, had a lower body mass index, longer diabetic duration, and had more hypertension, diabetic retinopathy, and smoking history than patients without diabetic foot.

Chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is associated with mortality, amputation, and impaired quality of life. These Global Vascular Guidelines (GVG) are focused on definition, evaluation, and management of CLTI with the goals of improving evidence-based care and highlighting critical research needs. The term CLTI is preferred over critical limb ischemia, as the latter implies threshold values of impaired perfusion rather than a continuum. CLTI is a clinical syndrome defined by the presence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) in combination with rest pain, gangrene, or a lower limb ulceration >2 weeks duration. Venous, traumatic, embolic, and nonatherosclerotic etiologies are excluded. All patients with suspected CLTI should be referred urgently to a vascular specialist. Accurately staging the severity of limb threat is fundamental, and the Society for Vascular Surgery Threatened Limb Classification system, based on grading of Wounds, Ischemia, and foot Infection (WIfI) is endorsed. Objective hemodynamic testing, including toe pressures as the preferred measure, is required to assess CLTI. Evidence-based revascularization (EBR) hinges on three independent axes: Patient risk, Limb severity, and ANatomic complexity (PLAN). Average-risk and high-risk patients are defined by estimated procedural and 2-year all-cause mortality. The GVG proposes a new Global Anatomic Staging System (GLASS), which involves defining a preferred target artery path (TAP) and then estimating limb-based patency (LBP), resulting in three stages of complexity for intervention. The optimal revascularization strategy is also influenced by the availability of autogenous vein for open bypass surgery. Recommendations for EBR are based on best available data, pending level 1 evidence from ongoing trials. Vein bypass may be preferred for average-risk patients with advanced limb threat and high complexity disease, while those with less complex anatomy, intermediate severity limb threat, or high patient risk may be favored for endovascular intervention. All patients with CLTI should be afforded best medical therapy including the use of antithrombotic, lipid-lowering, antihypertensive, and glycemic control agents, as well as counseling on smoking cessation, diet, exercise, and preventive foot care. Following EBR, long-term limb surveillance is advised. The effectiveness of nonrevascularization therapies (eg, spinal stimulation, pneumatic compression, prostanoids, and hyperbaric oxygen) has not been established. Regenerative medicine approaches (eg, cell, gene therapies) for CLTI should be restricted to rigorously conducted randomizsed clinical trials. The GVG promotes standardization of study designs and end points for clinical trials in CLTI. The importance of multidisciplinary teams and centers of excellence for amputation prevention is stressed as a key health system initiative.