Systematic review and meta-analysis of skin substitutes in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers: Highlights of a Cochrane systematic review

Skin substitutes are increasingly used in the treatment of various types of acute and chronic wounds. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of skin substitutes on ulcer healing and limb salvage in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Randomized clinical trials were searched and assessed following the methodology of The Cochrane Collaboration. We included 17 trials, totaling 1655 randomized participants. Risk of bias was variable among included trials. Thirteen trials compared the skin substitutes with standard care. The pooled results showed that that skin substitutes can, in addition to standard care, increase the likelihood of achieving complete ulcer closure compared with standard care alone after 6-16 weeks (risk ratio 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30-1.85). Four of the included trials compared two types of skin substitutes but no particular product showed a superior effect over another. Two trials reported on total incidence of lower limb amputations. Pooling the results of these two trials yielded a statistically significantly lower amputation rate among patients treated with skin substitutes (risk ratio 0.43, 95% CI 0.23-0.81), although the absolute risk difference was small (20.06, 95% CI 20.10 to 20.01). This systematic review provides evidence that skin substitutes can, in addition to standard care, increase the likelihood of achieving complete ulcer closure compared with standard care alone in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. However, effectiveness on the long term, including lower limb salvage and recurrence, is currently lacking and cost-effectiveness is unclea

What are the decision-making preferences of patients in vascular surgery? A mixed-methods study

Shared decision-making (SDM) has been advocated as the preferred method of choosing a suitable treatment option. However, patient involvement in treatment decision-making is not yet common practice in the field of vascular surgery. The aim of this mixed-methods study was to explore patients' decision-making preferences and to investigate which facilitators and barriers patients perceive as important for the application of SDM in vascular surgery. Patients were invited to participate after visiting the vascular surgical outpatient clinic of an Academic Medical Center in the Netherlands. A treatment decision was made during the consultation for an abdominal aortic aneurysm or peripheral arterial occlusive disease. Patients filled in a number of questionnaires (quantitative part) and a random subgroup of patients participated in an in-depth interview (qualitative part). A total of 67 patients participated in this study. 58 per cent of them (n=39) indicated that they preferred a shared role in decision-making. In more than half of the patients (55%; n=37) their preferred role was in disagreement with what they had experienced. 31 per cent of the patients (n=21) preferred a more active role in the decision-making process than they had experienced. Patients indicated a good patient-doctor relationship as an important facilitator for the application of SDM. The vast majority of vascular surgical patients preferred, but did not experience a shared role in the decision-making process, although the concept of SDM was insufficiently clear to some patients. This emphasises the importance of explaining the concept of SDM and implementing it in the clinical encounte

Outcomes of Conservative Treatment in Patients with Chronic Limb Threatening Ischaemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: Chronic limb threatening ischaemia (CLTI) is the most severe form of peripheral arterial disease. International guidelines recommend arterial revascularisation in patients with CLTI. However, these patients are often fragile elderly people with significant comorbidities, whose vascular anatomy is not always suitable for open or endovascular revascularisation. Recent studies have suggested acceptable outcomes of conservative treatment. A systematic review of the available literature was conducted to obtain best estimates of outcomes of conservative treatment in patients with CLTI. Data sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central. Review methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception until September 2019. All studies reporting on outcomes of conservative treatment for CLTI were considered. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were done by two investigators independently. Risk of bias was evaluated with a modified version of the Cochrane tool for observational studies. Outcomes of interest were all cause mortality, major amputation, and amputation free survival (AFS) after at least 12 months of follow up. A random effects model was used for meta-analyses. Results: Twenty-seven publications were included, consisting of 12 observational studies and 15 placebo arms from randomised clinical trials, totalling 1 642 patients. Most studies included patients with non-reconstructable CLTI. Overall study quality was moderate. The pooled 12 month all cause mortality rate in 14 studies comprising 1 003 patients was 18% (95% confidence interval [CI] 13 – 25, I 2 = 73%). The pooled major amputation rate from 14 studies comprising 755 patients was 27% (95% CI 20 – 36, I 2 = 65%) after one year, and pooled AFS rate after 12 months in 11 studies with 970 patients was 60% (95% CI 52 – 67, I 2 = 75%). Conclusion: Conservative treatment for patients with CLTI may be considered and does not always result in loss of limb or patient demise. The results of this review can be used to inform patients with CLTI about conservative treatment as part of a shared decision making process

OPTION(5) versus OPTION(12) instruments to appreciate the extent to which healthcare providers involve patients in decision-making

The 12-item "observing patient involvement" (OPTION(12))-instrument is commonly used to assess the extent to which healthcare providers involve patients in health-related decision-making. The five-item version (OPTION(5)) claims to be a more efficient measure. In this study we compared the Dutch versions of the OPTION-instruments in terms of inter-rater agreement and correlation in outpatient doctor-patient consultations in various settings, to learn if we can safely switch to the shorter OPTION(5)-instrument. Two raters coded 60 audiotaped vascular surgery and oncology patient consultations using OPTION(12) and OPTION(5). Unweighted Cohen's kappa was used to compute inter-rater agreement on item-level. The association between the total scores of the two OPTION-instruments was investigated using Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) and a Bland & Altman plot. After fine-tuning the OPTION-manuals, inter-rater agreement for OPTION(12) and OPTION(5) was good to excellent (kappa range 0.69-0.85 and 0.63-0.72, respectively). Mean total scores were 23.7 (OPTION(12); SD=7.8) and 39.3 (OPTION(5); SD=12.7). Correlation between the total scores was high (r=0.71; p=0.01). OPTION(5) scored systematically higher with a wider range than OPTION(12). Both OPTION-instruments had a good inter-rater agreement and correlated well. OPTION(5) seems to differentiate better between various levels of patient involvement. The OPTION(5)-instrument is recommended for clinical applicatio

Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy in the Treatment of Ischemic Lower- Extremity Ulcers in Patients With Diabetes: Results of the DAMO(2)CLES Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVEConflicting evidence exists on the effects of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) in the treatment of chronic ischemic leg ulcers. The aim of this trial was to investigate whether additional HBOT would benefit patients with diabetes and ischemic leg ulcers.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSPatients with diabetes with an ischemic wound (n = 120) were randomized to standard care (SC) without or with HBOT (SC+HBOT). Primary outcomes were limb salvage and wound healing after 12 months, as well as time to wound healing. Other end points were amputation-free survival (AFS) and mortality.RESULTSBoth groups contained 60 patients. Limb salvage was achieved in 47 patients in the SC group vs. 53 patients in the SC+HBOT group (risk difference [RD] 10% [95% CI -4 to 23]). After 12 months, 28 index wounds were healed in the SC group vs. 30 in the SC+HBOT group (RD 3% [95% CI -14 to 21]). AFS was achieved in 41 patients in the SC group and 49 patients in the SC+HBOT group (RD 13% [95% CI -2 to 28]). In the SC+HBOT group, 21 patients (35%) were unable to complete the HBOT protocol as planned. Those who did had significantly fewer major amputations and higher AFS (RD for AFS 26% [95% CI 10-38]).CONCLUSIONSAdditional HBOT did not significantly improve complete wound healing or limb salvage in patients with diabetes and lower-limb ischemi