Trends in the incidence of lower limb amputation after implementation of a Multidisciplinary Diabetic Foot Unit

Effect of a multidisciplinary team approach in patients with diabetic foot ulcers on major adverse limb events (MALEs): systematic review and meta-analysis for the development of the Italian guidelines for the treatment of diabetic foot syndrome

The treatment of patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) is extremely complex, requiring a comprehensive approach that involves a variety of different healthcare professionals. Several studies have shown that a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach is useful to achieve good clinical outcomes, reducing major and minor amputation and increasing the chance of healing. Despite this, the multidisciplinary approach is not always a recognized treatment strategy. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the effects of an MDT approach on major adverse limb events, healing, time-to-heal, all-cause mortality, and other clinical outcomes in patients with active DFUs. The present meta-analysis was performed for the purpose of developing Italian guidelines for the treatment of diabetic foot with the support of the Italian Society of Diabetology (Società Italiana di Diabetologia, SID) and the Italian Association of Clinical Diabetologists (Associazione Medici Diabetologi, AMD). The study was performed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. All randomized clinical trials and observational studies, with a duration of at least 26 weeks, which compared the MDT approach with any other organizational strategy in the management of patients with DFUs were considered. Animal studies were excluded. A search of Medline and Embase databases was performed up until the May 1st, 2023. Patients managed by an MDT were reported to have better outcomes in terms of healing, minor and major amputation, and survival in comparison with those managed using other approaches. No data were found on quality of life, returning-to-walking, and emergency admission. Authors concluded that the MDT may be effective in improving outcomes in patients with DFUs.

Impact of multidisciplinary care of diabetic foot infections for inpatients at Campbelltown Hospital

BACKGROUND

Diabetic foot infection (DFI), including diabetic foot ulcer, is a serious complication of diabetes, particularly in the South Western Sydney (SWS) region where it is a leading cause of diabetes-related hospitalisations. Multidisciplinary team (MDT) involvement is effective at improving the health outcomes of DFI patients. This study investigated the impact of MDT (High Risk Foot Service, HRFS) on the length of stay and surgical outcomes of inpatients with DFI in a Sydney tertiary hospital.

METHOD

A retrospective audit of electronic medical records of inpatient admissions for DFI at Campbelltown Hospital between January 2019 - December 2021, was performed. The main outcome of the study was MDT involvement, defined as having two or more specialities involved in the patient's treatment. The other measured variables included length of stay (defined as the total duration from admission to discharge), and surgical outcomes including debridement, minor amputation, and major amputation.

RESULTS

Over the three years, 78 participants presented to the hospital for 89 unique DFI admissions. There were 24 admissions in 2019, 28 admissions in 2020, and 37 admissions in 2021, with MDT attendance showing a steady increase at 62.5%, 75.0% and 83.8% respectively. Patients with serious comorbidities such as chronic kidney disease were more likely to have MDT involvement (84.8% vs. 15.2%, P = 0.048). Imaging was more likely to be performed with MDT involvement (78.8% vs. 21.3%, p < 0.05). Comparing patients who received and did not receive MDT care, the mean HbA1c (%) (8.4 ± 2.0 vs. 8.2 ± 2.7, P = 0.701), median length of stay (LOS: 7.8, IQR 15.0 days vs. 4.8 IQR 7.9 days, P = 0.243) and rate of surgical outcomes (74.6% vs. 72.7%, P = 0.262) were similar. Patients who required major amputation had significantly longer LOS (24 days, IQR 21.5 vs. 5.2 days, IQR 13.0, P = 0.004) but similar HbA1c (P = 0.552) compared to those who had conservative intervention.

CONCLUSION

Adopting an MDT approach was associated with more thorough investigation of DFI, with similar rates of surgical outcomes. Further research on the impacts of MDT on length of stay and surgical outcomes of DFI patients in other SWS hospitals is needed.

A multidisciplinary team reduces in-hospital clinical complications and mortality in patients with diabetic foot ulcers

AIMS

The current study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary diabetic foot team (MDFT) in the management of in-patients affected by diabetic foot problems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was a retrospective observational study. Consecutive patients with a diabetic foot problem requiring hospitalisation were included. All patients were managed by a MDFT led by diabetologists according to the guidance. The rate of in-hospital complications (IHCs), major amputation, and survival were recorded at the end of patient's hospitalisation. IHC was defined as any new infection different from wound infection, cardiovascular events, acute renal injury, severe anaemia requiring blood transfusion, and any other clinical problem not present at the assessment.

RESULTS

Overall, 350 patients were included. The mean age was 67.9 ± 12.6 years, 254 (72.6%) were males, 323 (92, 3%) showed Type 2 diabetes with a mean duration of 20.2 ± 9.6 years; 224 (64%) had ischaemic diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) and 299 (85.4%) had infected DFUs. IHCs were recorded in 30/350 (8.6%) patients. The main reasons for IHCs were anaemia requiring blood transfusion (2.8%), pneumonia (1.7%), acute kidney failure (1.1%). Patients with IHCs showed a higher rate of major amputation (13.3 vs. 3.1%, p = 0.02) and mortality (16.7 vs. 0.6%, p < 0.0001) in comparison to those without. Ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and wound duration at the assessment (>1 month) were independent predictors of IHC, whereas IHCs, heart failure, and dialysis were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The multidisciplinary management of diabetic foot problems leads to an IHC rate of 8%. The risk of IHCs is higher in patients with IHD and long wound duration.

[Multidisciplinary unit specialized in the treatment of diabetic foot: Evaluation and results]

INTRODUCTION

In this study the evaluation of the care process of the diabetic foot will be carried out after the implementation of an intra-hospital clinical pathway and a multidisciplinary consultation.

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate the influence on factors related to the care, amputations, and rehabilitation of the amputee patient.

METHODOLOGY

Retrospective study, in which the comparison of three periods has been made. First (3years): Before the implantation of the pathway. Second (5years): After the implementation of the pathway. Third (10years): After the implementation of the consultation.

RESULTS

A specialized consultation in diabetic foot care contributes to a reduction in femoral and minor amputations. The assessment and treatment by rehabilitation of patients undergoing major amputation has been optimized.

CONCLUSION

The implantation of the pathway and consultation contributes to the preservation of the lower limb. However, the incidence remains high, suggesting that diabetic foot care remains suboptimal.

A systematic review of multidisciplinary teams to reduce major amputations for patients with diabetic foot ulcers

OBJECTIVE

Multiple single-center studies have reported significant reductions in major amputations among patients with diabetic foot ulcers after initiation of multidisciplinary teams. The purpose of this study was to assess the association between multidisciplinary teams (ie, two or more types of clinicians working together) and the risk of major amputation and to compile descriptions of these diverse teams.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through May 24, 2019 for studies reporting the association between multidisciplinary teams and major amputation rates for patients with diabetic foot ulcers. We included original studies if ≥50% of the patients seen by the multidisciplinary team had diabetes, they included a control group, and they reported the effect of a multidisciplinary team on major amputation rates. Studies were excluded if they were non-English language, abstracts only, or unpublished. We used the five-domain Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety Model to describe team composition and function and summarized changes in major amputation rates associated with multidisciplinary team care. A meta-analysis was not performed because of heterogeneity across studies, their observational designs, and the potential for uncontrolled confounding (PROSPERO No. 2017: CRD42017067915).

RESULTS

We included 33 studies, none of which were randomized trials. Multidisciplinary team composition and functions were highly diverse. However, four elements were common across teams: teams were composed of medical and surgical disciplines; larger teams benefitted from having a "captain" and a nuclear and ancillary team member structure; clear referral pathways and care algorithms supported timely, comprehensive care; and multidisciplinary teams addressed four key tasks: glycemic control, local wound management, vascular disease, and infection. Ninety-four percent (31/33) of studies reported a reduction in major amputations after institution of a multidisciplinary team.

CONCLUSIONS

Multidisciplinary team composition was variable but reduced major amputations in 94% of studies. Teams consistently addressed glycemic control, local wound management, vascular disease, and infection in a timely and coordinated manner to reduce major amputation for patients with diabetic foot ulcerations. Care algorithms and referral pathways were key tools to their success.

Effect of contact with podiatry in a team approach context on diabetic foot ulcer and lower extremity amputation: systematic review and meta-analysis

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach has been shown to reduce diabetic foot ulcerations (DFUs) and lower extremity amputations (LEAs), but there is heterogeneity between team members and interventions. Podiatrists have been suggested as “gatekeepers” for the prevention and management of DFUs. The purpose of our study is to review the effect of podiatric interventions in MDTs on DFUs and LEAs. We conducted a systematic review of available literature. Data’s heterogeneity about DFU outcomes made it impossible for us to include it in a meta-analysis, but we identified 12 studies fulfilling inclusion criteria that allowed for them to be included for LEA outcomes. With the exception of one study, all reported favourable outcomes for MDTs that include podiatry. We found statistical significance in favour of an MDT approach including podiatrists for our primary outcome (total LEAs (RR: 0.69, 95% CI 0.54–0.89, I² = 64%, P = 0.002)) and major LEAs (RR: 0.45, 95% CI 0.23–0.90, I² = 67%, P < 0.02). Our systematic review, with a standard search strategy, is the first to specifically address the relevant role of podiatrists and their interventions in an MDT approach for DFU management. Our observations support the literature that MDTs including podiatrists have a positive effect on patient outcomes but there is insufficient evidence that MDTs with podiatry management can reduce the risk of LEAs. Our study highlights the necessity for intervention descriptions and role definition in team approach in daily practice and in published literature.

Impact of socioeconomic status on the clinical profile of patients with non-traumatic lower-limb amputation

INTRODUCTION

To analyse the influence of socioeconomic status on the clinical profile of patients undergoing non-traumatic lower-limb amputation.

METHODS

Retrospective study of 697 lower-limb amputee patients in an Angiology and Vascular Surgery Department during a 5-year period. Patients were classified according to their socioeconomic status (low, medium and high). We analysed demographic (age and gender) and clinical variables (cause of amputation, comorbidity, cardiovascular risk factors and amputation level).

RESULTS

Mean age was 70.5 ± 11.9 years, and the median was 72 years. The low socioeconomic status group presented a higher frequency of amputations in men. Cardiovascular risks factors were more frequent in this socioeconomic group, and the difference was statistically significant for diabetes (85.8% low, 69.3% medium, 65% high; P<.01) and obesity (31.4% low, 22.6% medium, 12.5% high, P<.01). Diabetic retinopathy was the only comorbidity with a significant association with low socioeconomic status (21.1% low, 15.3% medium, 12.5% high, P<.03). Regarding the cause for amputation, there was no difference in terms of socioeconomic status. The low socioeconomic level showed a higher frequency of major amputation, which was a significant difference (63.6% low, 41.2% medium, 55% high, P<.04) and a higher predisposition for this amputation level.

CONCLUSIONS

The low socioeconomic status has been shown to determine an unfavourable vascular risk profile in lower-limb non-traumatic amputees and a higher predisposition of a major amputation. This socioeconomic level demonstrates a negative influence on these patients' diabetes, obesity and diabetic retinopathy.