Search

Objective: The objective of this review was to synthesize the available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) estimating the relative efficacy and safety of intensive vs less intensive glycemic control in preventing diabetic foot syndrome., Methods: We used the umbrella design (systematic review of systematic reviews) to identify eligible RCTs. Two reviewers determined RCT eligibility and extracted descriptive, methodologic, and diabetic foot outcome data. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool outcome data across studies, and the I(2) statistic was used to quantify heterogeneity., Results: Nine RCTs enrolling 10,897 patients with type 2 diabetes were included and deemed to be at moderate risk of bias. Compared with less intensive glycemic control, intensive control (hemoglobin A1c, 6%-7.5%) was associated with a significant decrease in risk of amputation (relative risk [RR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-0.94; I(2) = 0%). Intensive control was significantly associated with slower decline in sensory vibration threshold (mean difference, -8.27; 95% CI, -9.75 to -6.79). There was no effect on other neuropathic changes (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.75-1.05; I(2) = 32%) or ischemic changes (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.67-1.26; I(2) = 0%). The quality of evidence is likely moderate., Conclusions: Compared with less intensive glycemic control therapy, intensive control may decrease the risk of amputation in patients with diabetic foot syndrome. The reported risk reduction is likely overestimated because the trials were open and the decision to proceed with amputation could be influenced by glycemic control., (Copyright © 2016 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Multiple adjunctive therapies have been proposed to accelerate wound healing in patients with diabetes and foot ulcers. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the best available evidence supporting the use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT), arterial pump devices, and pharmacologic agents (pentoxifylline, cilostazol, and iloprost) in this setting., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus through October 2011. Pairs of independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data. Predefined outcomes of interest were complete wound healing and amputation., Results: We identified 18 interventional studies; of which 9 were randomized, enrolling 1526 patients. The risk of bias in the included studies was moderate. In multiple randomized trials, the addition of HBOT to conventional therapy (wound care and offloading) was associated with increased healing rate (Peto odds ratio, 14.25; 95% confidence interval, 7.08-28.68) and reduced major amputation rate (odds ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.89), compared with conventional therapy alone. In one small trial, arterial pump devices had a favorable effect on complete healing compared with HBOT and in another small trial compared with placebo devices. Neither iloprost nor pentoxifylline had a significant effect on amputation rate compared with conventional therapy. No comparative studies were identified for cilostazol in diabetic foot ulcers., Conclusions: There is low- to moderate-quality evidence supporting the use of HBOT as an adjunctive therapy to enhance diabetic foot ulcer healing and potentially prevent amputation. However, there are only sparse data regarding the efficacy of arterial pump devices and pharmacologic interventions., (Copyright © 2016 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Several methods of débridement of diabetic foot ulcers are currently used. The relative efficacy of these methods is not well established., Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to find the best available evidence for the effect of débridement on diabetic foot wound outcomes. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus through October 2011 for randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and observational comparative studies., Results: We identified 11 RCTs and three nonrandomized studies reporting on 800 patients. The risk of bias was moderate overall. Meta-analysis of three RCTs showed that autolytic débridement significantly increased the healing rate (relative risk [RR], 1.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35-2.64). Meta-analysis of four studies (one RCT) showed that larval débridement reduced amputation (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.21-0.88) but did not increase complete healing (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.84-1.91). Surgical débridement was associated with shorter healing time compared with conventional wound care (one RCT). Insufficient evidence was found for comparisons between autolytic and larval débridement (one RCT), between ultrasound-guided and surgical débridement, and between hydrosurgical and surgical débridement., Conclusions: The available literature supports the efficacy of several débridement methods, including surgical, autolytic, and larval débridement. Comparative effectiveness evidence between these methods and supportive evidence for other methods is of low quality due to methodologic limitations and imprecision. Hence, the choice of débridement method at the present time should be based on the available expertise, patient preferences, the clinical context and cost., (Copyright © 2016 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: This systematic review summarized the evidence on noninvasive screening tests for the prediction of wound healing and the risk of amputation in diabetic foot ulcers., Methods: We searched MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus from database inception to October 2011. We pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and compared test performance., Results: Thirty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Eight tests were used to predict wound healing in this setting, including ankle-brachial index (ABI), ankle peak systolic velocity, transcutaneous oxygen measurement (TcPo2), toe-brachial index, toe systolic blood pressure, microvascular oxygen saturation, skin perfusion pressure, and hyperspectral imaging. For the TcPo2 test, the pooled DOR was 15.81 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.36-74.45) for wound healing and 4.14 (95% CI, 2.98-5.76) for the risk of amputation. ABI was also predictive but to a lesser degree of the risk of amputations (DOR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.65-5.05) but not of wound healing (DOR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.40-2.64). It was not feasible to perform meta-analysis comparing the remaining tests. The overall quality of evidence was limited by the risk of bias and imprecision (wide CIs due to small sample size)., Conclusions: Several tests may predict wound healing in the setting of diabetic foot ulcer; however, most of the available evidence evaluates only TcPo2 and ABI. The overall quality of the evidence is low, and further research is needed to provide higher quality comparative effectiveness evidence., (Copyright © 2016 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Increased plantar foot pressure is one of several key factors that lead to diabetic foot ulcers. Multiple methods have been proposed to relieve this pressure and thus enhance wound healing and potentially prevent relapse. We aimed in this systematic review to find the best available evidence for off-loading methods., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus through October 2011. Pairs of independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data. Predefined outcomes of interest included complete wound healing, time to complete wound healing, amputation, infection, and relapse rates., Results: We identified 19 interventional studies, of which 13 were randomized controlled trials, including data from 1605 patients with diabetic foot ulcers using an off-loading method. The risk of bias in the included studies was moderate. This analysis demonstrated improved wound healing with total contact casting over removable cast walker, therapeutic shoes, and conventional therapy. There was no advantage of irremovable cast walkers over total contact casting. There was improved healing with half-shoe compared with conventional wound care. Therapeutic shoes and insoles reduced relapse rate in comparison with regular footwear. Data were sparse regarding other off-loading methods., Conclusions: Although based on low-quality evidence (ie, evidence warranting lower certainty), benefits are demonstrated for use of total contact casting and irremovable cast walkers in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Reduced relapse rate is demonstrated with various therapeutic shoes and insoles in comparison with regular footwear., (Copyright © 2016 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)