Effectiveness of revascularisation for the ulcerated foot in patients with diabetes and peripheral artery disease: A systematic review.

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is associated with an increased likelihood of delayed or non-healing of a diabetes-related foot ulcer, gangrene, and amputation. The selection of the most effective surgical technique for revascularisation of the lower limb in this population is challenging and there is a lack of conclusive evidence to support the choice of intervention. This systematic review aimed to determine, in people with diabetes and tissue loss, if direct revascularisation is superior to indirect revascularisation and if endovascular revascularisation is superior to open revascularisation for the outcomes of wound healing, minor or major amputation, and adverse events including mortality. Title and abstract searches of Medline, Embase, PubMed, and EBSCO were conducted from 1980 to 30th November 2022. Cohort and case-control studies and randomised controlled trials reporting comparative outcomes of direct (angiosome) revascularisation (DR) and indirect revascularisation (IR) or the comparative outcomes of endovascular revascularisation and open or hybrid revascularisation for the outcomes of healing, minor amputation, and major amputation in people with diabetes, PAD and tissue loss (including foot ulcer and/or gangrene) were eligible. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials, the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised studies, and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational and cohort studies where details regarding the allocation to intervention groups were not provided. From a total 7086 abstracts retrieved, 26 studies met the inclusion criteria for the comparison of direct angiosome revascularisation (DR) and indirect revascularisation (IR), and 11 studies met the inclusion criteria for the comparison of endovascular and open revascularisation. One study was included in both comparisons. Of the included studies, 35 were observational (31 retrospective and 4 prospective cohorts) and 1 was a randomised controlled trial. Cohort study quality was variable and generally low, with common sources of bias related to heterogeneous participant populations and interventions and lack of reporting of or adjusting for confounding factors. The randomised controlled trial had a low risk of bias. For studies of DR and IR, results were variable, and it is uncertain if one technique is superior to the other for healing, prevention of minor or major amputation, or mortality. However, the majority of studies reported that a greater proportion of participants receiving DR healed compared with IR, and that IR with collaterals may have similar outcomes to DR for wound healing. For patients with diabetes, infrainguinal PAD, and an adequate great saphenous vein available for use as a bypass conduit who were deemed suitable for either surgical procedure, an open revascularisation first approach was superior to endovascular therapy to prevent a major adverse limb event or death (Hazard Ratio: 0.72; 95% CI 0.61-0.86). For other studies of open and endovascular approaches, there was generally no difference in outcomes between the interventions. The majority of available evidence for the effectiveness of DR and IR and open and endovascular revascularisation for wound healing and prevention of minor and major amputation and adverse events including mortality in people with diabetes, PAD and tissue loss is inconclusive, and the certainty of evidence is very low. Data from one high quality randomised controlled trial supports the use of open over endovascular revascularisation to prevent a major limb event and death in people with diabetes, infrainguinal disease and tissue loss who have an adequate great saphenous vein available and who are deemed suitable for either approach.

Chuter V ，Schaper N ，Mills J ，Hinchliffe R ，Russell D ，Azuma N ，Behrendt CA ，Boyko EJ ，Conte MS ，Humphries MD ，Kirksey L ，McGinigle KC ，Nikol S ，Nordanstig J ，Rowe V ，van den Berg JC ，Venermo M ，Fitridge R ... -  《-》

Vein bypass first vs. best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy for chronic limb-threatening ischaemia due to infra-popliteal disease: the BASIL-2 RCT.

Moakes CA ，Bradbury AW ，Abdali Z ，Bate GR ，Hall J ，Jarrett H ，Kelly L ，Kigozi J ，Lockyer S ，Meecham L ，Patel S ，Popplewell M ，Slinn G ，Deeks JJ ，BASIL-2 Investigators ... -  《-》

Performance of non-invasive bedside vascular testing in the prediction of wound healing or amputation among people with foot ulcers in diabetes: A systematic review.

The presence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) confers a significantly increased risk of failure to heal and major lower limb amputation for people with diabetes-related foot ulcer (DFU). Determining performance of non-invasive bedside tests for predicting likely DFU outcomes is therefore key to effective risk stratification of patients with DFU and PAD to guide management decisions. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the performance of non-invasive bedside tests for PAD to predict DFU healing, healing post-minor amputation, or need for minor or major amputation in people with diabetes and DFU or gangrene. A database search of Medline and Embase was conducted from 1980 to 30 November 2022. Prospective studies that evaluated non-invasive bedside tests in patients with diabetes, with and without PAD and foot ulceration or gangrene to predict the outcomes of DFU healing, minor amputation, and major amputation with or without revascularisation, were eligible. Included studies were required to have a minimum 6-month follow-up period and report adequate data to calculate the positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio for the outcomes of DFU healing, and minor and major amputation. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. From 14,820 abstracts screened 28 prognostic studies met the inclusion criteria. The prognostic tests evaluated by the studies included: ankle-brachial index (ABI) in 9 studies; ankle pressures in 10 studies, toe-brachial index in 4 studies, toe pressure in 9 studies, transcutaneous oxygen pressure (TcPO2 ) in 7 studies, skin perfusion pressure in 5 studies, continuous wave Doppler (pedal waveforms) in 2 studies, pedal pulses in 3 studies, and ankle peak systolic velocity in 1 study. Study quality was variable. Common reasons for studies having a moderate or high risk of bias were poorly described study participation, attrition rates, and inadequate adjustment for confounders. In people with DFU, toe pressure ≥30 mmHg, TcPO2 ≥25 mmHg, and skin perfusion pressure of ≥40 mmHg were associated with a moderate to large increase in pretest probability of healing in people with DFU. Toe pressure ≥30 mmHg was associated with a moderate increase in healing post-minor amputation. An ABI using a threshold of ≥0.9 did not increase the pretest probability of DFU healing, whereas an ABI <0.5 was associated with a moderate increase in pretest probability of non-healing. Few studies investigated amputation outcomes. An ABI <0.4 demonstrated the largest increase in pretest probability of a major amputation (PLR ≥10). Prognostic capacity of bedside testing for DFU healing and amputation is variable. A toe pressure ≥30 mmHg, TcPO2 ≥25 mmHg, and skin perfusion pressure of ≥40 mmHg are associated with a moderate to large increase in pretest probability of healing in people with DFU. There are little data available evaluating the prognostic capacity of bedside testing for healing after minor amputation or for major amputation in people with DFU. Current evidence suggests that an ABI <0.4 may be associated with a large increase in risk of major amputation. The findings of this systematic review need to be interpreted in the context of limitations of available evidence, including varying rates of revascularisation, lack of post-revascularisation bedside testing, and heterogenous subpopulations.

Chuter V ，Schaper N ，Hinchliffe R ，Mills J ，Azuma N ，Behrendt CA ，Boyko EJ ，Conte MS ，Humphries M ，Kirksey L ，McGinigle KC ，Nikol S ，Nordanstig J ，Rowe V ，David R ，van den Berg JC ，Venermo M ，Fitridge R ... -  《-》

Effectiveness of revascularisation of the ulcerated foot in patients with diabetes and peripheral artery disease: A systematic review.

In patients with diabetes, foot ulceration and peripheral artery disease (PAD), it is often difficult to determine whether, when and how to revascularise the affected lower extremity. The presence of PAD is a major risk factor for non-healing and yet clinical outcomes of revascularisation are not necessarily related to technical success. The International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot updated systematic review on the effectiveness of revascularisation of the ulcerated foot in patients with diabetes and PAD is comprised of 64 studies describing >13 000 patients. Amongst 60 case series and 4 non-randomised controlled studies, we summarised clinically relevant outcomes and found them to be broadly similar between patients treated with open vs endovascular therapy. Following endovascular revascularisation, the 1 year and 2 year limb salvage rates were 80% (IQR 78-82%) and 78% (IQR 75-83%), whereas open therapy was associated with rates of 85% (IQR 80-90%) at 1 year and 87% (IQR 85-88%) at 2 years, however these results were based on a varying combination of studies and cannot therefore be interpreted as cumulative. Overall, wound healing was achieved in a median of 60% of patients (IQR 50-69%) at 1 year in those treated by endovascular or surgical therapy, and the major amputation rate of endovascular vs open therapy was 2% vs 5% at 30 days, 10% vs 9% at 1 year and 13% vs 9% at 2 years. For both strategies, overall mortality was found to be high, with 2% (1-6%) perioperative (or 30 day) mortality, rising sharply to 13% (9-23%) at 1 year, 29% (19-48%) at 2 years and 47% (39-71%) at 5 years. Both the angiosome concept (revascularisation directly to the area of tissue loss via its main feeding artery) or indirect revascularisation through collaterals, appear to be equally effective strategies for restoring perfusion. Overall, the available data do not allow us to recommend one method of revascularisation over the other and more studies are required to determine the best revascularisation approach in diabetic foot ulceration.

Forsythe RO ，Apelqvist J ，Boyko EJ ，Fitridge R ，Hong JP ，Katsanos K ，Mills JL ，Nikol S ，Reekers J ，Venermo M ，Zierler RE ，Hinchliffe RJ ，Schaper NC ... -  《-》

Gene therapy for peripheral arterial disease.

Forster R ，Liew A ，Bhattacharya V ，Shaw J ，Stansby G ... -  《-》