Do SIRS Criteria Predict Clinical Outcomes in Diabetic Skin and Soft Tissue Infections?

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.

Classification of foot ulcers in people with diabetes: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Classification and scoring systems can help both clinical management and audit the outcomes of routine care.

AIM

This study aimed to assess published systems used to characterise ulcers in people with diabetes to determine which should be recommended to (a) aid communication between health professionals, (b) predict clinical outcome of individual ulcers, (c) characterise people with infection and/or peripheral arterial disease, and (d) audit to compare outcomes in different populations. This systematic review is part of the process of developing the 2023 guidelines to classify foot ulcers from the International Working Group on Diabetic Foot.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science for articles published up to December 2021 which evaluated the association, accuracy or reliability of systems used to classify ulcers in people with diabetes. Published classifications had to have been validated in populations of >80% of people with diabetes and a foot ulcer.

RESULTS

We found 28 systems addressed in 149 studies. Overall, the certainty of the evidence for each classification was low or very low, with 19 (68%) of the classifications being assessed by ≤ 3 studies. The most frequently validated system was the one from Meggitt-Wagner, but the articles validating this system focused mainly on the association between the different grades and amputation. Clinical outcomes were not standardized but included ulcer-free survival, ulcer healing, hospitalisation, limb amputation, mortality, and cost.

CONCLUSION

Despite the limitations, this systematic review provided sufficient evidence to support recommendations on the use of six particular systems in specific clinical scenarios.

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.

Does Metabolic Control Have Any Influence on the Clinical Presentation and Short-Term Outcomes of Diabetic Foot Infections?

Objective: We hypothesized that patients with poor glycemic control undergoing treatment for diabetic foot infections (DFIs) would have a poorer prognosis than those with better metabolic control assessed by glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Approach: We analyzed a retrospective cohort of 245 patients with moderate and severe DFIs. HbA1c values were dichotomized (<7% or ≥7% and ≤75th percentile (P75) and >P75) to analyze patient outcomes regarding metabolic control. The present study adhered to the STROBE guidelines for cohort studies. Results: One hundred sixty-nine patients (69%) were men. Their mean age was 60.7 years (10.8). HbA1c ≥7% was detected in 203 patients (82.9%). P75 HbA1c was 10.9%. After performing univariate analysis, we found an association of HbA1c <7% with major amputations and mortality. However, after applying the logistic regression model, we did not find HbA1c <7% to be a predictive factor of major amputation. The risk factors for mortality following application of Cox's proportional hazards model were osteomyelitis (HR: 0.2, 95% CI: 0.07-0.62, p < 0.01), eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m² (HR: 2.7, 95% CI: 1.0-7.5, p = 0.04), and HbA1c <7% (HR: 4.9, 95% CI: 1.8-13.2, p < 0.01). Innovation: The group with optimal glycemic control (HbA1c <7%) had a shorter survival time than those with worse metabolic control. Conclusions: We did not find a longer duration of hospitalization, a higher rate of amputations, or longer healing times in the groups with worse metabolic control. HbA1c <7% was a risk factor for mid-term mortality.

Limb Salvage in Severe Diabetic Foot Infection

Severe diabetic foot infections (DFI) are both limb threatening and life threatening and associated with negative impact on health-related quality of life. Most severe DFIs require surgical intervention, and the goal of treatment should be preservation of limb function in addition to eradication of infection. Minor amputations are required in approximately 40% and major amputations in approximately 20% of patients. Significant risk factors for lower extremity amputation included male gender, smoking, previous amputation, osteomyelitis, peripheral artery disease, retinopathy, severe infections, gangrene, neuroischemic diabetic foot infections, leukocytosis, positive wound cultures, and isolation of gram-negative bacteria.

Clinical, microbiological and inflammatory markers of severe diabetic foot infections

AIMS

In addition to systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), various clinical signs, microbiological findings and inflammatory markers could be associated with severe diabetic foot infections (DFI).

METHODS

This study included a retrospective cohort of 245 patients with DFI treated at San Juan de Dios Hospital in San José de Costa Rica. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), CRP/albumin ratio, peripheral blood leucocyte ratios and the Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis (LRINEC) scoring system were evaluated. Univariate analysis was carried out between moderate and severe infections. ROC curves were plotted. Cut-off value of inflammatory markers for diagnosing severe infections was established and then dichotomized to be included in a logistic regression model. A score was designed based on its results.

RESULTS

Skin necrosis (p < 0.01, OR = 8.5, 95% CI = 3.5-20.9), ESR > 94 mm/h (p < 0.01, OR = 2.5, 95% CI = 1.2-5.1), albumin < 2.8 g/dl (p = 0.04, OR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.0-4.1) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) > 4.52 (p < 0.01, OR = 3.3, 95% CI = 1.6-6.5) were found to be predictive of severe infections. Score >5 had a good diagnosis performance for classifying severe infections. Moderate infections with a score >5 had a worse prognosis than moderate ones.

CONCLUSIONS

We found an association of necrosis, serum albumin, ESR and NLR values with severe DFI. The presence of these predictive factors of severity in cases of moderate infections was significantly associated with a higher rate of amputations and recurrences, longer duration of antibiotic treatment and longer hospital stays. DFI could be classified as mild, moderate, severe without SIRS and severe.