Differentiating diabetic foot ulcers that are unlikely to heal by 12 weeks following achieving 50% percent area reduction at 4 weeks
ABSTRACT This retrospective analysis included intent-to-treat control patient data from two published, randomised, diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) trials in an effort to differentiate ulcers that are unlikely to heal by 12 weeks despite early healing progress [≥50% percent area reduction (PAR) at 4 weeks]. Predicted and actual wound area trajectories in DFUs that achieved early healing progress were analysed from weeks 5 to 12 and compared for ulcers that did and did not heal at 12 weeks. In 120 patients who achieved ≥50% PAR by week 4, 62 (52%) failed to heal by 12 weeks. Deviations from the predicted healing course were evident by 6 weeks for non healing ulcers. A 2-week delay in healing significantly lowered healing rates (P = 0·001). For DFUs with ≥50% PAR at 4 weeks, those achieving ≥90% versus <90% PAR at 8 weeks had a 2·7-fold higher healing rate at 12 weeks (P = 0·001). A PAR of <90% at 8 weeks provided a negative predictive value for DFU healing at 12 weeks of 82%. For ulcers that fail to progress or worsen from weeks 4 to 6, and those that fail to achieve 90% PAR at 8 weeks, reevaluation of the wound and its treatment is recommended.
- SourceAvailable from: PubMed Central[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Our purpose was to compare healing characteristics of diabetic foot ulcers treated with dehydrated human amniotic membrane allografts (EpiFix®, MiMedx, Kennesaw, GA) versus standard of care. An IRB-approved, prospective, randomised, single-centre clinical trial was performed. Included were patients with a diabetic foot ulcer of at least 4-week duration without infection having adequate arterial perfusion. Patients were randomised to receive standard care alone or standard care with the addition of EpiFix. Wound size reduction and rates of complete healing after 4 and 6 weeks were evaluated. In the standard care group (n = 12) and the EpiFix group (n = 13) wounds reduced in size by a mean of 32·0% ± 47·3% versus 97·1% ± 7·0% (P < 0·001) after 4 weeks, whereas at 6 weeks wounds were reduced by -1·8% ± 70·3% versus 98·4% ± 5·8% (P < 0·001), standard care versus EpiFix, respectively. After 4 and 6 weeks of treatment the overall healing rate with application of EpiFix was shown to be 77% and 92%, respectively, whereas standard care healed 0% and 8% of the wounds (P < 0·001), respectively. Patients treated with EpiFix achieved superior healing rates over standard treatment alone. These results show that using EpiFix in addition to standard care is efficacious for wound healing.International Wound Journal 06/2013; 10(5). DOI:10.1111/iwj.12097 · 2.02 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To enhance the learner's competence with information about best practices in management of foot ulcers in people with diabetes. This continuing education activity is intended for physicians and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care. After participating in this educational activity, the participant should be better able to:1. Identify assessment parameters to discern causes and risk factors for foot ulcers.2. Apply evidence-based practices to case scenarios for the prevention and management of diabetic foot ulcers. Care of people with diabetic foot ulcers requires a systematic approach following the wound bed preparation paradigm and the existing best practice recommendations. The purpose of this article is to summarize key evidence and recommendations regarding prevention and management of diabetic foot ulcers that can be translated into practice.Advances in skin & wound care 11/2013; 26(11):512-24. DOI:10.1097/01.ASW.0000436385.24508.d5 · 1.63 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Foot disease complications, such as foot ulcers and infection, contribute to considerable morbidity and mortality. These complications are typically precipitated by "high-risk factors", such as peripheral neuropathy and peripheral arterial disease. High-risk factors are more prevalent in specific "at risk" populations such as diabetes, kidney disease and cardiovascular disease. To the best of the authors' knowledge a tool capturing multiple high-risk factors and foot disease complications in multiple at risk populations has yet to be tested. This study aimed to develop and test the validity and reliability of a Queensland High Risk Foot Form (QHRFF) tool. The study was conducted in two phases. Phase one developed a QHRFF using an existing diabetes foot disease tool, literature searches, stakeholder groups and expert panel. Phase two tested the QHRFF for validity and reliability. Four clinicians, representing different levels of expertise, were recruited to test validity and reliability. Three cohorts of patients were recruited; one tested criterion measure reliability (n = 32), another tested criterion validity and inter-rater reliability (n = 43), and another tested intra-rater reliability (n = 19). Validity was determined using sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values (PPV). Reliability was determined using Kappa, weighted Kappa and intra-class correlation (ICC) statistics. A QHRFF tool containing 46 items across seven domains was developed. Criterion measure reliability of at least moderate categories of agreement (Kappa > 0.4; ICC > 0.75) was seen in 91% (29 of 32) tested items. Criterion validity of at least moderate categories (PPV > 0.7) was seen in 83% (60 of 72) tested items. Inter- and intra-rater reliability of at least moderate categories (Kappa > 0.4; ICC > 0.75) was seen in 88% (84 of 96) and 87% (20 of 23) tested items respectively. The QHRFF had acceptable validity and reliability across the majority of items; particularly items identifying relevant co-morbidities, high-risk factors and foot disease complications. Recommendations have been made to improve or remove identified weaker items for future QHRFF versions. Overall, the QHRFF possesses suitable practicality, validity and reliability to assess and capture relevant foot disease items across multiple at risk populations.Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 01/2014; 7(1):7. DOI:10.1186/1757-1146-7-7 · 1.83 Impact Factor