Outcomes after Emergency Admission with a Diabetic Foot Attack Indicate a High Rate of Healing and Limb Salvage But Increased Mortality: 18-Month Follow-up Study.

AIM: The diabetic foot attack (DFA) is perhaps the most devastating form of diabetic foot infection, presenting with rapidly progressive skin and tissue necrosis, threatening both limb and life. However, clinical outcome data in this specific group of patients are not available. METHODS: Analysis of 106 consecutive patients who underwent emergency hospitalisation for DFA (TEXAS Grade 3B or 3D and Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Class 4 criteria). Outcomes evaluated were: 1) Healing 2) major amputation 3) death 4) not healed. The first outcome reached in one of these four categories over the follow-up period (18.4±3.6 months) was considered. We also estimated amputation free survival. RESULTS: Overall, 57.5% (n=61) healed, 5.6% (n=6) underwent major amputation, 23.5% (n=25) died without healing and 13.2% (n=14) were alive without healing. Predictive factors associated with outcomes were: Healing (age<60, p=0.0017; no Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) p= 0.002; not on dialysis p=0.006); major amputation (CRP>100 mg/L, p=0.001; gram+ve organisms, p=0.0013; dialysis, p= 0.001), and for death (age>60, p= 0.0001; gram+ve organisms p=0.004; presence of PAD, p=0.0032; CRP, p=0.034). The major amputation free survival was 71% during the first 12 months from admission, however it had reduced to 55.4% by the end of the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: In a unique population of hospitalised individuals with DFA, we report excellent healing and limb salvage rates using a dedicated protocol in a multidisciplinary setting. An additional novel finding was the concerning observation that such an admission was associated with high 18-month mortality, almost all of which was after discharge from hospital.

People living with diabetes are unaware of their foot risk status or why they are referred to a multidisciplinary foot team.

AIM: People with active diabetic foot disease should be rapidly referred by health professionals along a pathway of care to a multidisciplinary foot team. The aim was to investigate patients' self-reported understanding of their foot risk status and reasons for their referral to a multidisciplinary foot team. METHOD: This seven-month service evaluation included consecutive newly referred patients. Participants completed a questionnaire which asked firstly about their understanding of their foot risk status, secondly about their pathway of care before presentation to the multidisciplinary foot team, and thirdly about their interest in diabetes-related foot education and preferred learning style. RESULTS: There were 202 participants; 65% were male, mean age was 64±15 years (mean±standard deviation (SD)), 86% had type 2 diabetes, and mean HbA1c was 65±23mmol/mol (8.3±3.7%). Only 4% of participants knew their current foot risk status and 52% did not know why their care had been escalated to a multidisciplinary foot clinic. Participants with type 2 diabetes more readily expressed an interest in further foot education compared with participants with type 1 diabetes, (70% versus 29%, p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings show that people with diabetes and foot disease are less aware of their foot risk status or why they are referred to a multidisciplinary team. Participants indicated a variable interest in further learning about foot complications. These findings indicate possible communication and educational barriers between patients and health professionals which may contribute to delayed presentation or suboptimal engagement.