Standard, Appropriate, and Advanced Care and
Medical-Legal Considerations: Part One—Diabetic Foot Ulcerations (B)
| |
| |
Abstract: Administration of prompt and appropriate care for diabetic foot ulcerations is necessary to reduce complications, which may lead to limb loss. An understanding of standard, appropriate, and advanced care may assist the physician in making the most optimal decision when treating diabetic foot ulcers. An overview of the diabetic foot, its associative problems, considerations when reviewing the diabetic patient, and approaches to treatment are presented in this article. Clinicians are encouraged to review each patient individually to determine their specific needs and to administer the most appropriate care.
This is "B", which is a continuation of the article "Standard, Appropriate, and Advanced Care and Medical-Legal Considerations:Part One—Diabetic Foot Ulcerations (A)."
Dressings
Hundreds of dressings are currently on the market with more appearing each year.[48] Rather than provide an extensive discussion on available dressings, the basic concepts behind appropriate choice are presented.
Extensive literature supports the benefits of moist wound healing.[49–56] Wounds should be dressed with materials that offer protection from outside contaminants, prevent wound desiccation, and provide an environment conducive to wound closure. The degree of moisture in a wound needs to be considered when treating the diabetic ulcer.
Cellular immune response adequately addresses increased bacterial proliferation in a moist environment. Patients with compromised cellular immune responses may not be able to address high levels of bacterial proliferation in a highly exudative environment. Hutchinson, et al.,[57] studied the incidence of infection under occlusion and found it to be four times more likely to occur under dry gauze than under occlusion. This study did not, however, contain a large population of plantar, neuropathic, diabetic foot ulcers. Allowing prolonged pooling of exudate in a diabetic foot ulcer may be a potentially dangerous situation on a diabetic patient. Excessive moisture also contributes to maceration, which decreases tensile strength and, combined with pressure, shear, or friction, may lead to further wound deterioration.
A simple rule may be followed when selecting the appropriate dressing for diabetic plantar foot ulcers. High levels of exudate warrant the choice of a moisture-absorbing material, which may include alginates, foams, collagen-alginate combinations, carboxymethylcellulose materials, or gauze. Low exudate and desiccated wounds respond well to hydrogels. Occlusive hydrocolloids are not recommended over highly exuding wounds in weight-bearing areas. The dressing needs to meet the need of the wound environment and should be changed as the status of the wound evolves. Diabetic ulcers require close evaluation. Dressing changes on moderate to heavily draining wounds are best performed on a daily basis or, at most, every two days on low-risk patients. Standard dressing care for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers in the US is still the use of wet-to-dry or wet-to-moist saline gauze dressings. While gauze dressings are appropriate when twice- or three-times-daily dressing changes are required, care must be taken to prevent strikethrough of bacteria. Gauze does not offer an effective barrier to external contaminants and bacteria. Advanced dressings are available that are more appropriate for diabetic foot ulcers than gauze.
Additional dressing choices include hydrogels, foams, calcium alginates, collagen alginates, and absorbent polymers. Choice of dressing depends on the depth, location, wound characteristics, bacterial burden, and treatment goal. The ideal dressing for the diabetic foot ulcer should prevent tissue desiccation, absorb excess fluid, and protect the wound from external contamination. Aggressive adhesives and completely occlusive dressings need to be avoided, particularly on weight-bearing surfaces or in areas of repetitive trauma. Foam dressings and alginates are effective for absorbing fluid, while hydrogels may be used on desiccated or low exudate wounds.
The clinician must be aware that dressings are constantly evolving and require the healthcare provider to be informed of their indications and contraindications. Dressings are designed to address the wound environment and are not a substitute for offloading devices or infection and diabetes control.
Advanced Care: New Technology
Dressings may provide an environment conducive to healing. New biologic products and drugs directly interact with the wound environment to manipulate and direct activity at a cellular level. Currently, at least two skin equivalents are being used in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Growth factors are also being carefully studied in many different wound environments.
Skin replacements. Cultured human keratinocytes have been developed and used in the past. They are of limited benefit on full-thickness defects and have not been shown to be of benefit in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers.
Dermagraft® (Smith & Nephew Inc., Largo, Florida) is a semisynthetic material composed of human neonatal dermal fibroblasts cultured onto a bioabsorbable mesh. The metabolically active cells are responsible for the secretion of human dermal collagen, growth factors, and other proteins, which may contribute to wound closure. Dermagraft is FDA approved for use in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers.[58–61]
Apligraf® (Novartis Pharmaceuticals Inc., East Hanover, New Jersey) is a bilayered, allogeneic skin equivalent with a fully differentiated epidermis and a dermis. The dermis consists of bovine collagen containing human fibroblasts derived from human foreskins, while the epidermis is derived from keratinocytes also attained from infant foreskins. Apligraf is currently indicated for the treatment of venous ulcers and diabetic foot ulcers.[62–64]
Growth factors. Prior to the introduction of Regranex® (becaplermin, Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Raritan, New Jersey), the only available growth factor was an autologous, unregulated product called Procuren® (Curative Health Services, Hauppauge, New York).[65,66] While one study suggests a benefit to the use of autologous factors, an additional study indicates no difference between treatment with autologous factors and placebo treatment.[66,67] Autologous materials, to date, are neither produced in regulated doses nor FDA controlled. While a benefit may exist to the use of autologous growth factors, the cost and questionable evidence of efficacy does not warrant their use as a primary choice when considering appropriate and advanced therapy. The use of autologous materials stimulated significant interest and studies on the use of recombinant materials.[68–71]
Becaplermin is a recombinant human platelet-derived growth factors and is the only currently approved growth factor indicated for the use of diabetic neuropathic plantar foot ulcers. Becaplermin is a recombinant, dosed, and regulated product.[72] This product has been shown through randomized, controlled, double-blinded multisite trials to be both effective and safe when used as directed. Study results indicated a statistically significant difference between uses of the treatment drug versus control therapy.[73–76]
While currently indicated and FDA approved for use on diabetic ulcers, becaplermin’s mechanism of action is not specific to diabetic wounds. Becaplermin may be prescribed by the healthcare provider for any ulcer where it is believed the product may be of benefit to the patient in the treatment of his or her wound, including pressure, venous, and other chronic ulcers, and where there is no contraindication to product use. Other bioengineered products may be of similar benefit when used on wounds other than those indicated in the product recommendations. Current publications also indicate a statistically significant difference favoring becaplermin in the treatment of pressure ulcers.[77]
Patients with diabetic ulcers are at high risk of developing complications, which may lead to amputation. A physician may argue that it was not possible to prevent an amputation although the community standard of care was applied. The patient or the legal advisor may reasonably argue that while standard of care is the care given by the majority of clinicians in the community, the amputation might have been avoided if appropriate or advanced care had been administered. Any reasonable therapy that expedites closure of the wound and decreases risk of morbidity and mortality associated with diabetic and other ulcers needs to be considered as a primary line of therapy and included in the care of the diabetic foot ulcer.
Healthcare providers may be hesitant to deviate from their medical training or from community norms. New treatment modalities are neglected when the clinician has become comfortable with past treatment regiments. Clinicians need to be encouraged to carefully read literature associated with new products and, when supported by well-designed clinical trials and scientific literature, apply the modalities as a means to expedite wound closure. Product cost, ability to significantly reduce the time to closure, advantages over other treatment modalities, and patient compliance are all considerations for the final treatment selection.
Summary
Cost containment, managed healthcare, and capitated systems often consider unit cost of treatments while neglecting the overall cost associated with long-term treatments resulting from complications arising from inappropriate care of an ulcer, particularly in the diabetic population. Standard care may be the accepted care in the medical community, but it may not be appropriate care. Advanced treatment modalities are appropriate and need to become part of standard care in the high-risk population with chronic ulcers. Standard care guidelines may no longer be considered the sole determinant of what may be appropriate for all ulcers, particularly diabetic ulcers, treated by the healthcare provider in the community. The treatment ultimately selected for each patient may have a significant impact on results. Considering each patient’s individual living environment, compliance, ability to self administer care, socioeconomic status and ability to purchase or obtain prescribed products, ambulatory status, wound status, and overall medical history will assist with selection of the most appropriate treatment modality and continuum of care. The healthcare provider has a duty to provide appropriate medical care whenever possible. This manuscript has provided a general overview of factors to consider when caring for the diabetic foot ulcer.
|
1. King J. The Law of Medical Malpractice in the State of Washington. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.,1986;52.
2. Consensus Development Conference on Diabetic Foot Wound Care, April 7–9, 1999, Boston, Massachusetts. Diabetes Care, 1999;22(8):1354–60.
3. Frykberg RG, Armstrong DG, Giurini J, et al. Diabetic Foot Disorders: A Clinical Practice Guideline. Brooklandville, MD: Data Trace Publishing Co, 2000.
4. Albrant DH. APhA drug treatment protocols: Management of foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. J APhA 2000;40(4):467–74.
5. McGuckin M, Stineman MG, Goin JE, Williams SV. Venous Leg Ulcer Guideline. Wayne, PA: Health Management Publications Inc, 1997.
6. Bergstom NJ, Bennett MA, Carlson CE, et al. Treatment of pressure ulcers. Clinical Practice Guideline Number 15. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service, US Dept of Health and Human Services, December 1994. ACHPR publication 95-0652.
7. Harris MI, Flegal KM, Cowie CC, et al. Prevalence of diabetes impaired fasting gluco glucose and impaired glucose tolerance in US adults. Diabetes Care 1998;21:518–24.
8. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). Diabetes Statistics and Prevention and Early Intervention for Diabetes Foot Problems. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, 1998.
9. Reiber GE, Boyko EJ, Smith DG. Lower-extremity foot ulcers and amputations in diabetes. In: Diabetes in America, Second Edition. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, 1995:409-28. NIH Publication No. 95-1468.
10. Murray HJ, Boulton AJM. The pathophysiology of diabetic foot ulceration. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 1995;12:1–17.
11. Ehrlichman RJ, Seckel BR, Bryan DJ, Moschella CJ. Common complications of wound healing: Prevention and management. Surg Clin North Am 1991;71:1323–51.
12. American Diabetes Association. Economic consequences of diabetes mellitus in the US in 1997. Diabetes Care 1998;21:296–309.
13. Weiman TJ, Smeill JM, Su Y. Efficacy and safety of a topical formulation of a recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor-BB (becaplermin) in patients with chronic neuropathic diabetic ulcers. Diabetes Care 1998;21:822–7.
14. Coleman WC, Birke JA. The initial foot examination in the patient with diabetes. In: Kominsky SJ (ed). Medical and Surgical Management of the Diabetic Foot. St. Louis, MO: Mosby, 1994;7–27.
15. Caputo GM, Cavanaugh PR, Ulbrecht JS, et al. Assessment and management of foot disease in patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med 1994;331:854–60.
16. Veves A, Sarnow MR. Diagnosis, classification, and treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 1995;12:19–30.
17. Armstrong DG, Lavery LA, Velsa SA, et al. Choosing a practical screening instrument to identify patients at risk for diabetic foot ulceration. Arch Intern Med 1998;158:289–92.
18. Gibbons GW, Marcaccio EJ, Habershaw GM. Management of the diabetic foot. In: Callow AD, Ernst CBN (eds). Vascular Surgery: Theory and Practice. Stamford, CT: Appleton and Lange, 1995;167–78.
19. Hollingshead TS. Pathophysiology and treatment of diabetic foot ulcer. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 1991;8:843–55.
20. Grunfeld C. Diabetic foot ulcers: Etiology, treatment, and prevention. Adv Intern Med 1991;37:103–32.
21. Steed DL. Diabetic wounds: Assessment, classification, and management. In: Krasner D, Kane D (eds). Chronic Wound Care: A Clinical Source Book for Healthcare Professionals, Second Edition. Wayne, PA: Health Management Publications, Inc., 1997;172–7.
22. Arora S, Logerfo FW. Lower-extremity macrovascular disease in diabetes. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 1997;87:327–31.
23. Lavery LA, Armstrong DG, Vela SA, et al. Practical criteria for screening patients at high risk for diabetic foot ulceration. Arch Intern Med 1998;158:157–62.
24. Simeone LR, Veves A. Screening techniques to identify the diabetic patient at risk of ulceration. J Am Podiatr Assoc 1997;87:313–7.
25. Moss SE, Klein R, Klein BE. The prevalence and incidence of lower-extremity amputation in a diabetic population. Arch Intern Med 1992;152:610–6.
26. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). Diabetes Statistics and Prevention and Early Intervention for Diabetes Foot Problems. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, 1998.
27. Wagner FW. The dysvascular foot: A system for diagnosis and treatment. Foot Ankle 1981;2:64–122.
28. Lavery LA, Armstrong DG, Harkless LB. Classification of diabetic foot wounds. J Foot Ankle Surg 1996;35:528–31.
29. Grayston ML, Gibbons GW, Balogh K, et al. Probing to bone in infected pedal ulcers: A clinical sign underlying osteomyelitis in diabetic patients. J Am Med Assoc 1995;273:721–3.
30. Bowler PG, Davies BJ, Jones SA. Microbial involvement in chronic wound malodour. J Wound Care 1999;8(5):216–8.
31. LeFrock JL, Joseph WS. Bone and soft-tissue infections of the lower extremities in diabetics. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 1995;12:87–103.
32. Little JR, Kobayaashi GS, Bailey TC. Infection of the diabetic foot. In: Levin ME, O’Neal LW, Bowker JH (eds). The Diabetic Foot, Second Edition. St. Louis, MO: Mosby, 1993;181–96.
33. Rodeheaver GT. Wound cleansing, wound irrigation, wound disinfection. In: Krasner D, Kane D (eds). Chronic Wound Care: A Clinical Source Book for Healthcare Professionals, Second Edition. Wayne, PA: Health Management Publications, 1997; 97–108.
34. Levin ME. Pathogenesis and management of diabetic foot lesions. In: Levin ME, O’Neal LW, Bowker JH (eds). The Diabetic Foot, Fifth Edition. St. Louis, MO: Mosby, 1993;17–56.
35. Gibbons GW, Eliopoulous GM. Infection of the diabetic foot. In: Kozak GP, Hoar CS, Rowbotham JL, et al (eds). Management of Diabetic Foot Problems. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders, 1984;97–102.
36. Steed DL, Donohue D, Webster MW, et al. Effect of extensive debridement and treatment on the healing of diabetic foot ulcers. J Am Coll Surg 1996;183:61–4.
37. Boulton AJM. The diabetic foot. Med Clin North Am 1988;72:1513–30.
38. Fleischmsnn E, Grassberger M. Erfolgreiche Wundheilung durch Maden-Therapie. Stuttgart, Germany: TRIAS Verlag, 2002.
39. Ehrlichman RJ, Seckel BR, Bryan DJ, et al. Common complications of wound healing: Prevention and management. Surg Clin North Am 1991;71:1323–51.
40. Janisse DJ. Prescription insoles and footwear. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 1995;12:41–61.
41. Armstrong DG, Lavery LA. Evidence-based options for offloading diabetic wounds. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 1998;15:95–104.
42. Towne JB. Management of foot lesions in the diabetic patient. In: Rutherford RD (ed). Vascular Surgery, Fourth Edition. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders, 1995;895–903.
43. Levin ME. Preventing amputation in the patient with diabetes. Diabetes Care 1995;18:1383–92.
44. Lavery LA, Lavery DC, Quebedeaux-Franham TL. Increased foot pressures after great toe amputation in diabetes. Diabetes Care 1995;18:1460–62.
45. Gilchist B. Infection and culturing. In: Krasner D, Kane D (eds). Chronic Wound Care: A Clinical Source Book for Healthcare Professionals, Second Edition. Wayne, PA: Health Management Publications, Inc., 1997;109–14.
46. Tammellin A, Lindholm C, Hambraeus A. Chronic ulcers and antibiotic treatment. J Wound Care 1998;7(9):435–7.
47. Jensenius M, von der Lippe B, Melby K, Steinbakk M. Proper use of antibiotics: What is that? Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 1995;115(28):3504–7.
48. Krasner D. Dressing decisions for the twenty-first century: On the cusp of a paradigm shift. In: Krasner D, Kane D (eds). Chronic Wound Care: A Clinical Source Book for Healthcare Professionals, Second Edition. Wayne, PA: Health Management Publications, Inc., 1997;139–51.
49. Seaman S. Dressing selection in chronic wound management. J Am Pod Assoc 2002;92:24–33.
50. Mulder GD, Heberer PA, Jeder KA. Clinician’s Pocket Guide to Wound Repair, Fourth Edition. 1998.
51. Choucair M, Phillips T. A review of wound healing and dressing materials. WOUNDS 1996;8(5):165–72.
52. Turner TD. The development of wound management products. In: Krasner D, Kane D (eds). Chronic Wound Care: A Clinical Source Book for Healthcare Professionals, Second Edition. Wayne, PA: Health Management Publications, Inc., 1997;124–38.
53. Carver N, Leigh IM. Synthetic dressings. Int J Dermatol 1992;31:10–8.
54. Higgins KR, Ashry HR. Wound dressings and topical agents. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 1995;12:31–40.
55. Doughty DB. Principles of wound healing and wound management. In: Bryant RA (ed). Acute and Chronic Wounds: Nursing Management. St. Louis, MO: Mosby, 1992;31–68.
56. Haimowitz JE, Margolis DJ. Moist wound healing. In: Krasner D, Kane D (eds). Chronic Wound Care: A Clinical Source Book for Healthcare Professionals, Second Edition. Wayne PA: Health Management Publications, Inc., 1997;49–56.
57. Hutchinson JJ, McGluckin M. Occlusive dressings: A microbiologic and clinical review. Am J Infec Contr 1990;18:257.
58. Gentzkow GD, Predergast JJ, Iwasaki SD, et al. Use of Dermagraft, a cultured human dermis, to treat diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Care 1996;19:350–4.
59. Naughton G, Mansbridge J, Gentzkow G. A metabolically active human dermal replacement for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Artif Organs 1997;21:1203–10.
60. Gentzkow GD, Jensen JL, Pollak RA, et al. Improved healing of diabetic foot ulcers after grafting with a living human dermal replacement. Wounds 1999;11(3):77–84.
61. Pollak RA, Edington H, Jensen JL. A human dermal replacement for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Wounds 1997;9(6):175–83.
62. Parenteau NL, Sabolinski ML, Mulder G, et al. Wound research. In: Krasner D, Kane D (eds). Chronic Wound Care: A Clinical Source Book for Healthcare Professionals, Second Edition. Wayne, PA: Health Management Publications, Inc., 1997;389–95.
63. Pham HT, Rosenblum BI, Lyons TE, et al. Evaluation of a human skin equivalent for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers in a prospective, randomized, clinical trial. Wounds 1999;11(4):79–86.
64. Falanga V, Sabolinski M. A bilayered living skin construct (Apligraf) accelerates complete closure of hard-to-heal venous ulcers. Wound Rep Reg 1999;7:201–7.
65. Knighton DR, Ciresi KF, Fieegel VD, et al. Classification and treatment of chronic nonhealing wounds: Successful treatment with autologous platelet-derived wound healing factors (PDWHF). Ann Surg 1986;204:322–30.
66. Knighton DR, Ciresi K, Fiegel VD, et al. Stimulation of repair in chronic, nonhealing, cutaneous ulcers using platelet-derived wound healing formula. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1990;170:56–60.
67. Krupski WC, Reilly LM, Perez S, et al. A prospective randomized trial of autologous platelet-derived wound healing factors for treatment of chronic nonhealing wounds: A preliminary report. J Vasc Surg 1991;14:526–36.
68. Greenhalgh DG. The role of growth factors in wound healing. J Trauma 1996;41:159–67.
69. Lawrence WT, Diegleman RF. Growth factors and wound healing. Dermatol Clin 1994;12:157–69.
70. Shultz GS, Mast BA. Molecular analysis of the environments of healing chronic wounds: Cytokines, proteases, and growth factors. Primary Intention 1999;7(1): 7–14 .
71. Siihi N. Diabetes and wound healing. J Wound Care 1998;7(1):47–51.
72. REGRANEX (becaplermin) Gel 0.01% product labeling. Raritan, NJ: Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, January, 1998.
73. Steed DL. Clinical evaluation of recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor for the treatment of lower extremity diabetic ulcers. J Vasc Surg 1995;21:71–81.
74. Weiman TJ, Smiell JM, Su Y. Efficacy and safety of topical gel formulation of recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor-BB (becaplermin) in patients with chronic neuropathic diabetic ulcers. Diabetes Care 1998;21(5):822–7.
75. Pierce PF, Tarpley JE, Yanagihara D, et al. Platelet-derived growth factor (BB homodimer), transforming growth factor-B1, and basic fibroblast growth factor in dermal wound healing. Am J Pathol 1992;140:1375–88.
76. Smiell JM, Wieman JT, Steed DL, et al. Efficacy and safety of becaplermin (recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor-BB) in patients with nonhealing, lower-extremity diabetic ulcers: A combined analysis of four randomized trials. Wound Rep Reg 1999;7:335–46.
77. Robson MC, Phillips LG, Thomason A, et al. Platelet-derived growth factor BB for the treatment of pressure sores. Lancet 1992;339(8784):23-5.
|
| Wounds - ISSN: 1044-7946 - Volume 15 - Issue 4 - April 2003 - Pages: 92 - 106 | |
|
|
