Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) are a serious complication of diabetes that results in significant morbidity and mortality. Mortality rates associated with the development of a DFU are estimated to be 5% in the first 12 months, and 5-year morality rates have been estimated at 42%. The standard practices in DFU management include surgical debridement, dressings to facilitate a moist wound environment and exudate control, wound off-loading, vascular assessment, and infection and glycemic control. These practices are best coordinated by a multidisciplinary diabetic foot wound clinic. Even with this comprehensive approach, there is still room for improvement in DFU outcomes. Several adjuvant therapies have been studied to reduce DFU healing times and amputation rates. We reviewed the rationale and guidelines for current standard of care practices and reviewed the evidence for the efficacy of adjuvant agents. The adjuvant therapies reviewed include the following categories: nonsurgical debridement agents, dressings and topical agents, oxygen therapies, negative pressure wound therapy, acellular bioproducts, human growth factors, energy-based therapies, and systemic therapies. Many of these agents have been found to be beneficial in improving wound healing rates, although a large proportion of the data are small, randomized controlled trials with high risks of bias.
Background: Costs related to diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) care are greater than $1 billion annually and rising. We sought to describe the impact of diabetes mellitus (DM) on foot ulcer admissions in the United States, and to investigate potential explanations for rising hospital costs. Methods: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2005–2010) was queried using International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9) codes for a primary diagnosis of foot ulceration. Multivariable analyses were used to compare outcomes and per-admission costs among patients with foot ulceration and DM versus non-DM. Results: In total, 962,496 foot ulcer patients were admitted over the study period. The overall rate of admissions was relatively stable over time, but the ratio of DM versus non-DM admissions increased significantly (2005: 10.2 vs. 2010: 12.7; P < 0.001). Neuropathy and infection accounted for 90% of DFU admissions, while peripheral vascular disease accounted for most non-DM admissions. Admissions related to infection rose significantly among DM patients (2005: 39,682 vs. 2010: 51,660; P < 0.001), but remained stable among non-DM patients. Overall, DM accounted for 83% and 96% of all major and minor amputations related to foot ulcers, respectively, and significantly increased cost of care (DM: $1.38 vs. non-DM: $0.13 billion/year; P < 0.001). Hospital costs per DFU admission were significantly higher for patients with infection compared with all other causes ($11,290 vs. $8,145; P < 0.001). Conclusions: Diabetes increases the incidence of foot ulcer admissions by 11-fold, accounting for more than 80% of all amputations and increasing hospital costs more than 10-fold over the 5 years. The majority of these costs are related to the treatment of infected foot ulcers. Education initiatives and early prevention strategies through outpatient multidisciplinary care targeted at high-risk populations are essential to preventing further increases in what is already a substantial economic burden.
Among patients with DFU, the WIfI classification system correlated well with wound healing but was not associated with risk of major amputation at 1 year. Although further prospective research is warranted, our results suggest that use of a multidisciplinary approach for DFUs may augment healing time and reduce amputation risk compared with previously published historical controls of standard wound care among patients with advanced stage 4 disease.
This article is the work product of the Continuous Glucose Monitor and Automated Insulin Dosing Systems in the Hospital Consensus Guideline Panel, which was organized by Diabetes Technology Society and met virtually on April 23, 2020. The guideline panel consisted of 24 international experts in the use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and automated insulin dosing (AID) systems representing adult endocrinology, pediatric endocrinology, obstetrics and gynecology, advanced practice nursing, diabetes care and education, clinical chemistry, bioengineering, and product liability law. The panelists reviewed the medical literature pertaining to five topics: (1) continuation of home CGMs after hospitalization, (2) initiation of CGMs in the hospital, (3) continuation of AID systems in the hospital, (4) logistics and hands-on care of hospitalized patients using CGMs and AID systems, and (5) data management of CGMs and AID systems in the hospital. The panelists then developed three types of recommendations for each topic, including clinical practice (to use the technology optimally), research (to improve the safety and effectiveness of the technology), and hospital policies (to build an environment for facilitating use of these devices) for each of the five topics. The panelists voted on 78 proposed recommendations. Based on the panel vote, 77 recommendations were classified as either strong or mild. One recommendation failed to reach consensus. Additional research is needed on CGMs and AID systems in the hospital setting regarding device accuracy, practices for deployment, data management, and achievable outcomes. This guideline is intended to support these technologies for the management of hospitalized patients with diabetes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.