Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:

Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_896_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана

.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
33 Мб
Скачать
20 Microbiology andTreatment ofDiabetic Foot Infection
https://t.me/med1917
377
65. Karthik S, etal. Microbiology of diabetic foot osteomyelitis—is it geographically variable? Foot (Edinb). 2022;52:101878.
66. Li X, etal. Microbiological concordance in the management of diabetic foot ulcer infections with osteomyelitis, on the basis of cultures of different specimens at a diabetic foot center in China. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2021;14:1493–503.
67. Lipsky BA.Medical treatment of diabetic foot infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39(Suppl 2):S104–14.
68. Lipsky BA, etal. Antibiotic therapy for diabetic foot infections: comparison of two parenteral-to-oral regimens. Clin Infect Dis. 1997;24(4):643–8.
69. Lipsky BA, Pecoraro RE, Wheat LJ.The diabetic foot. Soft tissue and bone infection. Infect Dis Clin N Am. 1990;4(3):409–32.
70. Slater RA, etal. Swab cultures accurately identify bacterial patho­gens in diabetic foot wounds not involving bone. Diabet Med. 2004;21(7):705–9.
71. Pellizzer G, etal. Deep tissue biopsy vs. supercial swab culture monitoring in the microbiological assessment of limb-threatening diabetic foot infection. Diabet Med. 2001;18(10):822–7.
72. Manas AB, etal. Admission time deep swab specimens compared with surgical bone sampling in hospitalized individuals with dia­betic foot osteomyelitis and soft tissue infection. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2021;20(4):300–8.
73. Sapico FL, etal. Quantitative aerobic and anaerobic bacteriology of infected diabetic feet. J Clin Microbiol. 1980;12(3):413–20.
74. Tan JS, etal. Can aggressive treatment of diabetic foot infections reduce the need for above-ankle amputation? Clin Infect Dis. 1996;23(2):286–91.
75. van Baal JG.Surgical treatment of the infected diabetic foot. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39(Suppl 2):S123–8.
76. McIntyre KE Jr, et al. Guillotine amputation in the treatment of nonsalvageable lower-extremity infections. Arch Surg. 1984;119(4):450–3.
77. Chantelau E, etal. Antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated neuro­pathic forefoot ulcers in diabetes: a controlled trial. Diabet Med. 1996;13(2):156–9.
78. Jones EW, Edwards R, Finch R, Jaffcoate WJ.A microbiologic study of diabetic foot lesions. Diab Med. 1984;2:213–5.
79. Dumville JC, etal. Topical antimicrobial agents for treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;6(6):CD011038.
80. Fox HR, Karchmer AW.Management of diabetic foot infections, including the use of home intravenous antibiotic therapy. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 1996;13(4):671–82.
81. Lipsky BA. Evidence-based antibiotic therapy of diabetic foot infections. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 1999;26(3–4):267–76.
82. Corey GR, etal. Single-dose oritavancin in the treatment of acute bacterial skin infections. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(23):2180–90.
83. O’Riordan W, et al. Omadacycline for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(6):528–38.
84. Pullman J, et al. Efcacy and safety of delaoxacin compared with vancomycin plus aztreonam for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections: a phase 3, double-blind, randomized study. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2017;72(12):3471–80.
85. Seltzer E, etal. Once-weekly dalbavancin versus standard-of-care antimicrobial regimens for treatment of skin and soft-tissue infec­tions. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;37(10):1298–303.
86. Lipsky BA, Itani K, Norden C.Treating foot infections in diabetic patients: a randomized, multicenter, open-label trial of linezolid versus ampicillin-sulbactam/amoxicillin-clavulanate. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38(1):17–24.
87. Stevens DL, etal. Linezolid versus vancomycin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;34(11):1481–90.
88. Arbeit RD, etal. The safety and efcacy of daptomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38(12):1673–81.
89. Lipsky BA, Stoutenburgh U. Daptomycin for treating infected diabetic foot ulcers: evidence from a randomized, controlled trial comparing daptomycin with vancomycin or semi-synthetic penicillins for complicated skin and skin-structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2005;55(2):240–5.
90. Stryjewski ME, et al. Telavancin versus vancomycin for the treatment of complicated skin and skin-structure infec­tions caused by gram-positive organisms. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46(11):1683–93.
91. Lipsky BA, etal. Ceftaroline fosamil for treatment of diabetic foot infections: the CAPTURE study experience. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2015;31(4):395–401.
92. Selva Olid A, etal. Systemic antibiotics for treating diabetic foot infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;9:CD009061.
93. Crouzet J, etal. Diabetic foot infection: a critical review of recent randomized clinical trials on antibiotic therapy. Int J Infect Dis. 2011;15(9):e601–10.
94. Caputo GM, etal. Assessment and management of foot disease in patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med. 1994;331(13):854–60.
95. Lipsky BA. Empirical therapy for diabetic foot infections: are there clinical clues to guide antibiotic selection? Clin Microbiol Infect. 2007;13(4):351–3.
96. Tamma PD, Aitken S, Bonomo RA, Mathers AJ, van Duin D, Clancy CJ.Infectious Diseases Society of America antimicrobial­resistant treatment guidance: gram-negative bacterial infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2023:ciad428.
97. Beam T, Gutierrez I, Powell S, etal. Prospective study of the ef­cacy and safety of oral and intravenous ciprooxacin in the treat­ment of diabetic foot infections. Rev Infect Dis. 1989;11(Suppl
5):S1163.
98. Hughes CE, et al. Treatment and long-term follow-up of foot infections in patients with diabetes or ischemia: a randomized, prospective, double-blind comparison of cefoxitin and ceftizox­ime. Clin Ther. 1987;10 Suppl A:36–49.
99. Peterson LR, etal. Therapy of lower extremity infections with cip­rooxacin in patients with diabetes mellitus, peripheral vascular disease, or both. Am J Med. 1989;86(6 Pt 2):801–8.
100. Lipsky BA, et al. Ertapenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for diabetic foot infections (SIDESTEP): prospective, ran­domised, controlled, double-blinded, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2005;366(9498):1695–703.
101. Lipsky BA, etal. Treating diabetic foot infections with sequen­tial intravenous to oral moxioxacin compared with piperacillin­tazobactam/amoxicillin-clavulanate. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007;60(2):370–6.
102. Vick-Fragoso R, etal. Efcacy and safety of sequential intrave­nous/oral moxioxacin vs intravenous/oral amoxicillin/clavula­nate for complicated skin and skin structure infections. Infection. 2009;37(5):407–17.
103. Schaper NC, etal. Efcacy and safety of IV/PO moxioxacin and IV piperacillin/tazobactam followed by PO amoxicillin/clavu­lanic acid in the treatment of diabetic foot infections: results of the RELIEF study. Infection. 2013;41(1):175–86.
104. Xu ZR, etal. Ertapenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for dia­betic foot infections in China: a phase 3, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71(6):1688–96.
105. Vardakas KZ, Horianopoulou M, Falagas ME.Factors associated with treatment failure in patients with diabetic foot infections: an analysis of data from randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2008;80(3):344–51.
378
https://t.me/med1917
M. T. LaSalvia and A. W. Karchmer
106. Lauf L, etal. Phase 3 study comparing tigecycline and ertapenem in patients with diabetic foot infections with and without osteomy­elitis. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2014;78(4):469–80.
107. Cooper G, Platt R. Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia in diabetic patients. Endocarditis and mortality. Am J Med. 1982;73(5):658–62.
108. Senneville E, et al. Outcome of diabetic foot osteomyelitis treated nonsurgically: a retrospective cohort study. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(4):637–42.
109. Bamberger DM, Daus GP, Gerding DN. Osteomyelitis in the feet of diabetic patients. Long-term results, prognostic factors, and the role of antimicrobial and surgical therapy. Am J Med. 1987;83(4):653–60.
110. Game FL, Jeffcoate WJ. Primarily non-surgical manage­ment of osteomyelitis of the foot in diabetes. Diabetologia. 2008;51(6):962–7.
111. Senneville E, et al. Rifampicin-ooxacin oral regimen for the treatment of mild to moderate diabetic foot osteomyelitis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2001;48(6):927–30.
112. Ha Van G, et al. Treatment of osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot. Contribution of conservative surgery. Diabetes Care. 1996;19(11):1257–60.
113. Lesens O, etal. Staphylococcus aureus-related diabetic osteomy­elitis: medical or surgical management? A French and Spanish ret­rospective cohort. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2015;14(3):284–90.
114. Lazaro-Martinez JL, Aragon-Sanchez J, Garcia-Morales E. Antibiotics versus conservative surgery for treating diabetic foot osteomyelitis: a randomized comparative trial. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(3):789–95.
115. Berendt AR, etal. Diabetic foot osteomyelitis: a progress report on diagnosis and a systematic review of treatment. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2008;24(Suppl 1):S145–61.
116. Truong DH, etal. Meta-analysis: outcomes of surgical and medi­cal management of diabetic foot osteomyelitis. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2022;9(9):ofac407.
117. Li HK, etal. Oral versus intravenous antibiotics for bone and joint infection. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(5):425–36.
118. Lipsky BA.Osteomyelitis of the foot in diabetic patients. Clin Infect Dis. 1997;25(6):1318–26.
119. Kowalski TJ, et al. The effect of residual osteomyelitis at the resection margin in patients with surgically treated diabetic foot infection. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2011;50(2):171–5.
120. Atway S, et al. Rate of residual osteomyelitis after partial foot amputation in diabetic patients: a standardized method for evalu­ating bone margins with intraoperative culture. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2012;51(6):749–52.
121. Weng B, et al. Evaluating predictive value of surgical resected proximal bone margins in diabetic foot osteomyelitis with clinical outcomes at 1 year. Open forum. Infect Dis. 2023;10(1):ofac689.
122. Gariani K, etal. Three weeks versus six weeks of antibiotic ther­apy for diabetic foot osteomyelitis: a prospective, randomized, noninferiority pilot trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73(7):e1539–45.
123. American Diabetes Association. Consensus development confer­ence of diabetic foot wound care. Diab Care. 1999;22:1354–60.
124. Eneroth M, van Houtum WH. The value of debridement and vacuum-assisted closure (V.A.C.) therapy in diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2008;24(Suppl 1):S76–80.
125. Saluja S, etal. Foot ulceration and its association with mortality in diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis. Diabet Med. 2020;37(2):211–8.
126. Petersen BJ, etal. Higher rates of all-cause mortality and resource utilization during episodes-of-care for diabetic foot ulceration. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2022;184:109182.
127. Branch-Elliman W, etal. Association between diabetic foot infec­tion wound culture positivity and 1-year admission for invasive infection: a multicenter cohort study. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021;8(7):ofab172.
128. Ndosi M, et al. Prognosis of the infected diabetic foot ulcer: a 12-month prospective observational study. Diabet Med. 2018;35(1):78–88.
Preparation oftheWound Bed
https://t.me/med1917
oftheDiabetic Foot Ulcer
KevinRiemer andKevinBuczkowski
21
Abstract
One of the unfortunate results of diabetes is the formation of diabetic ulcers. These typically do not heal well and form chronic wounds which, despite recent advanced therapies, still fail to heal. This results in increased risk for infection, thus resulting in high amputation rates. Many factors contribute to poor healing. Hyperglycemia induces the majority of micro- and macrovascular com­plications associated with impaired wound healing. Wound bed preparation (WBP) is an essential step of dia­betic wound management in order to accelerate healing and/or facilitate the effectiveness of other treatment modalities. The main purpose of WBP is to remove the barriers that impair wound healing, including the pres­ence of necrotic tissue, senescent cells, altered extracel­lular matrix, hypoxia, high bacterial burden, and inammatory enzymes within the wound bed. There are several steps for achieving WBP, including debridement. We provide an overview of the current concepts of WBP in the context of diabetic ulcers.
Abbreviations
CSS Clinical signs and symptoms DFUs Diabetic foot ulcers DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid ECM Extracellular matrix EGF Epithelial growth factor EPCs Bone marrow-derived endothelial progenitor cells
K. Riemer (*) Division of Podiatric Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA e-mail: kriemer@bidmc.harvard.edu
K. Buczkowski Division of Podiatric Surgery, Signature Healthcare, Brockton, MA, USA e-mail: kbuczkow@bidmc.harvard.edu
FDA Food and Drug Administration HBOT Hyperbaric oxygen therapy HBOT Hyperbaric oxygen therapy HGF Hepatocyte growth factor HIF-1α Hypoxia-inducible factor 1-alpha LFUD Lower-frequency ultrasonic debridement M1 Macrophage proinammatory phenotype M2 Macrophage anti-inammatory and prohealing
phenotype MDT Maggot debridement therapy MMP-9 Metalloproteinase-9 MSC Mesenchymal stem cells PDGF-ββ Platelet-derived growth factor-ββ rhEGF Human recombinant epidermal growth factor TGF-β Transforming growth factor-β TIME Tissue (Necrotic), Infection/Inammation,
Moisture balance, healing of Edge of wound VEGF Vascular endothelium growth factor WBP Wound bed preparation
Introduction
Healing of diabetic wounds is complex and typically does not occur in a normal standard fashion compared to individu­als without diabetes. This is usually attributed to the result of poor glycemic control, underlying neuropathy, peripheral vascular disease, or poor foot care that results in the forma­tion of a diabetic ulceration [1]. The nonhealing ulcer then leads to further risk of amputation secondary to the develop­ment of infection.. The pathways to diabetic limb amputation have already been established by the causal pathways described by Pecoraro and Reiber [2]. Seven component causes are believed to be involved in the causation of dia­betic lower limb amputation: ischemia, neuropathy, trauma, ulceration, infection, gangrene, and faulty wound healing. While all these factors are important, the focus of this chap­ter will target the impaired healing of diabetic ulcerations.
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 A. Veves et al. (eds.), The Diabetic Foot, Contemporary Diabetes, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55715-6_21
379
380
https://t.me/med1917
K. Riemer and K. Buczkowski
Normal Wound Healing
Normal wound healing is accomplished through overlapping but distinct biological processes, namely, hemostasis and inammation, proliferation, and remodeling phases.
Hemostasis begins immediately after any injury affecting skin integrity [3]. As blood vessels constrict, platelets are activated by contact with exposed collagen and release their granules, resulting in further platelet activation and aggrega­tion. In conjunction with activation of the coagulation cas­cade, this results in deposition of a provisional brin matrix within the wound [4].
As a result of platelet activation during hemostasis, a large number of cytokines, including transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) and platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), are secreted to promote chemotaxis of neutrophils and mac­rophages leading to the initiation of the inammatory phase [5]. Neutrophils are among the rst cells to appear acutely. Experimental data suggests wound healing may progress in the absence of neutrophils, unlike macrophages, which have been found to be critical to this phase and overall wound healing [5]. Macrophages, derived from activated mono­cytes, aid in phagocytosis and produce more cytokines and growth factors that promote broblast proliferation, angio­genesis, and keratinocyte migration. Dysregulated wound macrophage function has been associated with impaired wound healing in diabetic wounds [6].
Within 2–3days of the initial injury, an ample number of broblasts migrate to the wound and signal the proliferative phase lasting up to 3 weeks in a healing cutaneous wound. Fibroblasts play a key role in this phase by production of dis­organized collagen, high in immature type III collagen, depos­ited into this provisional matrix [7]. Fibroblasts recruited to the wound may transform to become myobroblasts under the inuence of several cytokines leading to increased collagen production and eventual wound contraction [8]. Numerous signaling pathways were found to be implicated in modulating the wound healing process including but not limited to angio­tensin II and TGF-β through the canonical and noncanonical signaling pathways, among others [9].
During the nal remodeling phase of wound healing, granulation tissue is replaced by a permanent scar. Collagen production continues actively for 4–5 weeks followed by replacement of type III reticular collagen with type I brillar collagen over the following year [10]. Zinc-dependent endo­peptidases, known as matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) secreted by epidermal cells, play a central role in tissue remodeling [11]. Tensile strength of the wound site contin­ues to increase with increasing collagen production from 3% on week 1 and 20% after 3weeks. At 3months post injury, tensile strength peaks at 80% of uninjured skin, but not fully reaching 100% [12, 13].
Impaired Wound Healing inDiabetes
However, this carefully coordinated cascade of events is dis­rupted in diabetic wound healing. The resulting consequence is a vicious cycle of impaired wound healing; therefore, this sequence is not applicable to these chronic wounds [14]. It has been well documented that diabetic ulcers and other types of chronic wounds do not follow an orderly and reli­able progression of wound healing [15, 16]. Diabetic ulcer­ations remain in a chronic pro-inammatory state that is characterized by increased expression of inammatory cytokines [17].
The healing process in diabetes is mainly characterized by the state of chronic inammatory conditions, disrupted angiogenesis, reduction of endothelial progenitor cells, and an imbalance in extracellular matrix regulation. As observed in wound repair, neutrophils and macrophages promptly inltrate the area of the lesion driven by chemotactic chemo­kines that are particularly elevated in diabetes [18]. Inltrating cells release inammatory cytokines such as interleukin 1β (IL-1β) and tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) whose levels are not only elevated not only during the initial inammatory acute repair phase but remain at high concen­trations in the wound area for longer time. This indicates the maintenance of a prolonged inammatory response [19]. In diabetes, the production of several growth factors involved in initiating and sustaining the healing process is compromised. For instance, reduced levels of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) and transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) have been reported in the wound tissue in both diabetic animals and humans. IGF-1 is implied in cell granulation and wound reepithelization [20], while TGF-β recruits immune cells, keratinocytes, broblasts, and vascular cells and is involved in angiogenesis and formation of the ECM [21]. Transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) is a key factor throughout the wound healing process. However, cells in chronic wounds may not appropriately respond to TGF-β [22]. In diabetes, the balance between the promotion of new vessel formation and their maturation is disturbed. Angiogenesis is dysfunc­tional in endothelial cells exposed to elevated glucose levels, and in the wound area, capillary density is poor and insuf­cient. Hyperglycemia affects hypoxia-inducible factor 1-alpha (HIF-1α) stability and activation, and consequently it suppresses HIF-1α target genes such as vascular endothe­lial growth factor (VEGF) [23]. In diabetes animal models, macrophages, which are the main source of VEGF, exhibit impaired phagocytic activity and altered phenotype, result­ing in failure of tissue repair [24]. Accordingly, in a mice wound model, VEGF-A mRNA and protein levels were sig­nicantly reduced compared to control mice. Treatment with VEGF-A caused accelerated wound closure, although this was characterized by early leaky and malformed vasculature
21 Preparation oftheWound Bed oftheDiabetic Foot Ulcer
https://t.me/med1917
381
and complicated by edema until VEGF-A treatment was ceased [25]. In this context, dysregulated production of both pro-angiogenic and vascular maturation factors leads to a reduced population of endothelial progenitor cells in the bone marrow [26], thus causing modications in angiogenic sprouting and an aberrant vascular architecture in diabetic wounds [27].
The maturation phase of wound healing appears to be impaired in diabetes too. The production of factors leading to vascular mature phenotype (including angiopoietin (ANG) 1 and 2, PDGF) is compromised, and topical application of ANG1 and PDGF increased wound healing in a mouse model of diabetes induced by streptozotocin or in db/db mice, respectively [28, 29].
Finally, an impairment in the regulation of ECM, whose buildup is modulated by matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) and tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases (TIMPs) is observed in diabetes. Higher MMP levels have been reported in diabetic wounds, due to high glucose that may directly induce the production of MMPs and the reduction of TIMPs, thus contributing to disruption of the healing process [30]. MMPs are involved in various stages of wound healing, such as cell migration through the degraded ECM, leukocyte invasion, processing of multiple cytokines, and growth factors involved in the healing process. The bal­ance between MMPs and TIMPs is essential to avoid the disruption of the scaffolding structures necessary for proper wound healing [31]. Macrophages also show a decrease in the release of cytokines and other mediators. Increasing serum levels of inammatory cytokines, metalloprotein­ase-9 (MMP-9), and the inappropriate response to several growth factors may be responsible for diabetic ulcers’ fail­ure to heal [32]. Studies have found that the phenotypic transition of macrophages from M1 (pro-inammatory) to M2 (pro-remodeling) in diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) wound tissue is defective, and the recruitment of immune neutro­phils and macrophages is reduced, which delays the time of wound healing. Delay in healing potentiates the infection risk of the diabetic foot [33, 34].
At the local level, a typical feature of chronic wounds and diabetic ulcers is their propensity to become highly colo­nized with bacteria which interferes with wound healing. Even during the normal process of wound healing, complica­tions from infection can occur [35, 36]. Infection compli­cates nearly 50% of diabetic ulcers and is associated with signicant morbidity and may lead to amputation [37]. Bacteria can thrive within the wound as multilayered micro­bial colonies or biolm, surrounded by a protective coat of polysaccharides. Biolm is resistant to antimicrobials and contributes to persistent infection and delayed wound heal­ing [38, 39]. A specic microbiome might be associated with diabetic wounds and that could impact the capacity to heal and effectively manage these ulcers [3537, 39].
Problems with blood ow as seen with peripheral vascu­lar disease plays an essential role in the rapid spread of infec­tion in diabetic ulcers. Together with hyperglycemia and other metabolic effects of diabetes, local tissue hypoxia adversely affects neutrophil and macrophage function lead­ing to impaired healing [40]. In basic terms, diminished blood ow due to atherosclerosis or basement membrane thickening of blood vessels leads to decreased blood ow and oxygenation to the wound. Hyperglycemia decreases the function of red blood cells that carry nutrients to the tissue. This lowers the efciency of the white blood cells that ght infection. Without sufcient nutrients and oxygen, a wound heals slowly [41].
Wound Bed Preparation andDebridement
Dr. Frederick Treves revolutionized the management of dia­betic foot ulcers (DFUs) when he established three important principles in DFU treatment, which continue to be the foun­dation of modern-day care: sharp debridement, off-loading, and diabetic foot education [42].
Schultz et al. rst published the concept of wound bed preparation in 2003, which is a structured framework for use in the management of wounds. The TIME acronym (Tissue, Inammation/infection, Moisture balance, Epithelial edge advancement), published the following year, describes four aspects of wound bed preparation that need to be systemati­cally addressed in order for wound healing to take place. This acronym has since been widely accepted in clinical practice in both the assessment and management of chronic wounds.
The TIME concept (see Fig.21.1):
Tissue: This involves assessing for the presence of nonviable
or necrotic tissue, callus, foreign bodies, and exudate,
biolm, or slough. Intervention consists of debridement,
for which there is a wide range of techniques available. Infection/inammation: This involves assessing the etiology
of the wound and treating infection or inammation unre-
lated to infection. Intervention includes topical antimicro-
bials and systemic antibiotics. Moisture balance: This involves the assessment and manage-
ment of wound uid/exudate. Epithelial edge advancement: This involves the assessment
and management of non-advancing or undermining
wound edges and the condition of the surrounding skin
[14, 43].
The concept of WBP was initially brought to the attention of clinicians by Falanga and colleagues. The concept of WBP has become signied by most wound care experts as being crucial in terms of how chronic wounds are treated. The whole WBP
382
https://t.me/med1917
K. Riemer and K. Buczkowski
Fig. 21.1 Summary of TIME
Summary of T.I.M.E.
Clinical Need Clinical Action
T Tissue Management Wound bed preparation to remove necrotic,
I Control of infection and
inflammation
M Moisture balance Removal of excess wound exudate and
E Epithelial edge
advancement
paradigm described ten approaches of chronic wound manage­ment, which include treatment of the causative factors, identi­fying patients’ concerns, determining wound heal ability status, monitoring wound history and performing clinical examina­tion, debriding whenever appropriate with adequate pain con­trol, treating infected/inamed wound, managing moisture balance, evaluating rate of healing, giving consideration to active modalities for stalled but healable wound, and lastly pro­viding organizational support [44]. Chronic wounds are likely required to have repeated debridement as part of wound man­agement because devitalized tissue tends to resurface due to the underlying causative factors. As a result, selection of appropri­ate debridement procedures with adequate pain control was recommended for effective chronic wound treatment.
Types ofDebridement
Autolytic Debridement
This is a process by which the body uses its own endoge­nous proteolytic enzyme to shed devitalized tissue to selec­tively liquefy and separate nonviable tissue from healthy tissues [45, 46]. In general, this type of debridement method is relatively slower, and the time taken to remove devital­ized tissue using this method is dependent upon wound size and amount of dead tissue. More frequent clinical visits are generally required.
Enzymatic Debridement
This is a method of using chemical agents to break down devitalized tissue. The chemical agents contain exogenous
non-viable tissue and foreign material
Methods to remove infection and prevent inflammation
provide a controlled moist environment for optimal healing
Optimal environment for cell migration across the wound/ulcer
proteolytic enzymes that soften the necrotic tissue and are then removed during wound cleansing. It is relatively faster than autolytic debridement. Enzymatic debridement has been reported as one of the most cost-effective debridement methods, is shorter in duration, and requires fewer clinical visits compared to other debridement types [47]. This method uses an exogenous proteolytic enzyme, collage­nase, derived from Clostridium bacteria. Collagenase digests the collagen in the necrotic tissue allowing it to detach from viable tissue [48].
Surgical Debridement
Widely considered the gold standard of wound debridement, this is conducted in a sterile environment, almost always in an operating room by a surgeon [49]. The outcomes are gen­erally immediate and rapid; however, following this type of debridement, pain may be present and healthy tissue might be sacriced along with nonviable tissues.
Biological Debridement
This form of debridement usually is known as maggot debridement therapy (MDT) or larval therapy. It involves using sterile larvae of the green bottle y, Lucilia sericata, to eliminate all the dead tissue [50]. This therapy’s effec­tiveness lies in the secretion by the maggot, which contains antibacterial and chemical secretion that can break down dead tissue [51]. Five systemic reviews conducted between January 1960 and June 2010 consistently showed that chronic wounds treated with MDT remove all devitalized tissue faster than hydrogels [52].
21 Preparation oftheWound Bed oftheDiabetic Foot Ulcer
https://t.me/med1917
383
Mechanical Debridement
The earlier method of mechanical debridement involved using dry or wet-to-dry gauze or impregnated gauze to rip off dead tissue. Moistened gauze is applied on a sloughy wound bed and left to dry. Once removed, this pulls off nonviable tissue(s). However, due to pain experienced by the patient, new advanced debridement methods have emerged, such as monolament pads, hydro-surgery, and low-frequency ultra­sonic debridement [53].
Hydro-surgery Debridement
Hydro-surgery works based on the principle of the Venturi effect. Sterile saline is forcibly projected through a tiny jet nozzle, creating a localized vacuum. This concurrently grasps, cuts, and removes dead tissue and debris from the wound. This method is usually quick and effective. A 2021 systemic review on the effect of hydro-surgery found that this system was 8.87min faster compared to conventional sharp debridement and fewer debridements were required in the hydro-surgery group [54].
Ultrasonic Debridement
The removal of dead tissue was performed using low­frequency ultrasonic waves ranging between 20 and 40kHz to eliminate devitalized soft tissue by the cavitation effect. Two systematic reviews have evaluated the effectiveness of lower-frequency ultrasonic debridement (LFUD) on patients
with diabetic foot ulcer and chronic ulcers. Ultrasonic debridement was compared to nonsurgical sharp debride­ment and concluded no signicant difference in wound heal­ing [55]. However, Chang etal. reported that LFUD showed good outcomes under a low-frequency spectrum between 20 and 34kHz, with a treatment frequency of three times per week [56]. Lastly, there is evidence that direct contact devices did have a role in decreasing bacterial load and bio­lm [57].
Role ofDebridement
Debridement is an important part of WBP.However, debride­ment alone is not enough to sustain healing in chronic wounds/ulcers. In accordance with the TIME (necrotic Tissue, Infection/Inammation, Moisture balance, healing of Edge of wound) principles, debridement can help remove necrotic burden of abnormal or senescent cells and brous tissue (eschar), control inammation or infection, decrease excess moisture, and stimulate a non-advancing wound edge [58, 59]. By removing nonviable tissue, appropriate debride­ment of diabetic ulcers serves to correct several cellular (altered resident cells) and molecular (matrix material, growth factors, MMPs, and enzymes) abnormalities [60]. One hypothesis is that debridement resets the course toward restoring normal wound healing sequence [61] (Fig.21.2).
In the early stages of wound healing, debridement occurs autolytically through the action of neutrophil-derived enzymes. Protease inhibitors are also released by wound cells to restrict protease’s action to the wound bed and mini­mize damage to intact tissue at the wound edges. Although
ab
Fig. 21.2 (a) Ulcer surrounded by macerated tissue, nonviable tissue of wound bed. (b) Three weeks after managing exudate and weekly sharp debridement
384
https://t.me/med1917
K. Riemer and K. Buczkowski
debridement may occur naturally, this autolytic debridement can become slow or stalled. Active debridement is almost always required in the management of diabetic ulcers [62, 63]. Early debridement can accelerate the healing, but routine debridement is often needed to keep the wound in an active healing state [64]. Maintenance debridement between surgical interventions and sharp debridement may be con­ducted by several methods such as mechanical, autolytic, chemical, or biological [59]. It is important to mention that the relative efcacy of these debridement methods in dia­betic ulcer management is not well established [65].
Eect ofDebridement onWound Cells andWound Environment
The goal of debridement is to provide enhanced efcacy of other therapies such as growth factors, bioengineered skin, cell-based therapies, or other advanced therapies. It func­tions to convert the chronic wound into an acute wound, thereby also removing tissue(s) that can contribute to infec­tion. Debridement reduces devitalized necrotic tissue which acts as a nidus for bacterial contamination. The removal of devitalized tissue thereby reduces bacterial load in the wound bed which helps to accelerate the wound healing process. Removal of necrotic, dead tissue also helps to restore perfu­sion to the wound site which improves oxygen delivery to the wound bed. An adequate supply of oxygen is vital for the healing process, and therefore, debridement helps to improve healing through restoration of local blood supply. Bacteria compete with normal tissue for the supply of nutrients and energy. This in turn compromises the migration of broblasts into the extracellular matrix which is essential for wound healing to occur. A clean, debrided wound can recruit bro­blasts to the wound site which then lays down collagen brils. This helps to ll in the epithelial defect and promote contraction of the wound edges [66].
In chronic wounds, debridement must be done without injuring viable tissue. Efforts should be made to keep healthy cells within the wound that are biologically capable of responding to therapies [63]. In current practice, deciding when a wound bed is adequately prepared is problematic, if not impossible. The specialty of wound care is developed without the benet of an established diagnostic testing for inammation or bacterial burden [67, 68]. Today, clinicians rely on clinical signs and symptoms (CSS) to diagnose excessive inammation and elevated bacterial levels in non­healing wounds; however, CSS are unreliable [69]. In a large multicenter clinical trial, the average sensitivity of CSS in
detecting bacteria was only 15% [70]. Recent evidence sug­gests that two novel point-of-care diagnostic tests may ll the unmet need for wound diagnostics [7173].
The excessive inammatory protease activity (EPA) test provides a qualitative assessment of human inammatory protease activity in the ulcer. Proteases break down dam­aged ECM proteins and foreign material so that new tissue can form and wound closure can occur in an orderly fash­ion, but these levels can be elevated. A positive EPA indi­cates elevated levels of matrix metalloproteases (MMPs) 2, 8, and 9 and human neutrophil-derived elastase (HNE). A multicenter clinical trial evaluating the point-of care test demonstrated that 90% of wounds with EPA failed to prog­ress toward healing (median HNE 2.6mU/110 μL (range 0–108) and median total MMP 12.6 U/110 μL (range 0–476)) [72]. In addition, several studies have found ele­vated inammatory protease activity associated with non­healing chronic wounds. This was based upon a weighted average of eight studies including 503 patients demonstrat­ing EPA in 22% of nonhealing chronic wounds [74]. Conversely, low protease activity is found in wounds that are healing normally or found in chronic wounds where the delayed wound healing is not caused by excessive MMP and HNE activity. Studies have shown that wound bed preparation that does not reduce elevated protease levels was associated with skin graft failure. In contrast, wounds with low protease activity prior to grafting had 85–100% successful skin graft take [75, 76].
Bacterial protease activity (BPA) test provides a qualita­tive assessment of bacterial protease activity from the most common bacteria in chronic wounds (Staphylococcus aureus,
Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Proteus mirabilis, and Enterococcus faecalis). This detects elevated bacterial prote-
ases called virulence factors that correlate with bacterial pathogenicity. A multicenter clinical trial showed elevated BPA was associated with delayed wound healing. In addi­tion, the detection of increased BPA permitted the identica­tion of pathogenic bacteria in the wound prior to the onset of clinical signs and symptoms [73]. Ideally, clinicians would identify and treat pathogenic bacteria in the wound earlier prior to the onset of clinical signs of infection.
Other Modalities forWound Healing BeyondWBP
Despite the introduction of advanced wound dressings, nega­tive pressure wound therapy, cellular- and/or tissue-based products, and oxygen therapies, less than half of wounds
21 Preparation oftheWound Bed oftheDiabetic Foot Ulcer
https://t.me/med1917
385
heal after 12weeks of treatment [77]. There are additional approaches for WBP to improve clinical outcomes in the treatment of diabetic ulcers, including ofoading of the ulcer, management of edema and exudate, hyperbaric oxy­gen therapy, and advanced biological and tissue engineering therapies.
Various wound dressings have been developed based on the hypothesis that reepithelization increases when wounds are kept moist. However, appropriate moist wound healing is difcult to achieve in diabetic ulcers because a delicate bal­ance is required to avoid maceration of tissues. Maintaining an optimal moist wound bed with wound dressings is ideal to promote conditions that prevent eschar formation and facili­tate cell migration within the wound. Unfortunately, current evidence is lacking among which wound dressings have improved healing outcomes in diabetic foot ulcers [78]. Controlling edema and managing exudate are also critical in the management of diabetic ulcers. Minimizing edema helps reduce wound exudate, which has been shown to be harmful for the cells around the wound and may enhance bacterial colonization [19].
Pressure off-loading is very important to remove a source of repetitive pressure and constant trauma and is essential in diabetic wound healing. Although there are many types of pressure-relieving devices, the total contact cast is consid­ered by many to be the best method for off-loading and treat­ing diabetic patients with neuropathic ulcers [79]. However, other options for off-loading have been developed and are utilized.
Another common issue in diabetic ulcers is tissue hypoxia. Some studies suggest that hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT), by exposure to 100% oxygen pressure at 1–3 atmosphere absolute (ATA), is strongly effective in reducing the rate of major amputations in patients with diabetic foot ulcers [80, 81]. HBOT promotes neutrophil­mediated bacterial killing ability in hypoxic tissue. HBOT is thought to prevent the release of proteases and free radi­cals in certain injuries, thereby decreasing vasoconstric­tion, edema, and cellular damage [82]. Topical oxygen therapies are also being utilized with recent supportive evidence for use as an adjunct to standard wound care to promote wound healing [83].
Utilizing growth factors can have effects on cell regen­eration, stimulation of proliferation, migration of keratino­cytes, formation of granulation tissues, and promotion of broblast motility for wound healing. There are studies that support the use of human recombinant epidermal growth factor (rhEGF) in treating diabetic ulcers with increased rates of wound healing [84]. However, this growth factor is
not universally available. In the USA, platelet-derived growth factor-ββ (PDGF-ββ) is the only Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved topically applied recombi­nant growth factor for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers [85]. Evidence shows that extensive debridement of diabetic ulcers is synergistic with the application of PDGF-ββ [62]. VEGF acts on angiogenesis and tissue granulation during the early stage of healing. Thus, in chronic lesions that are characterized by low VEGF, a possible therapeutic treat­ment modality is externally administered to achieve wound healing [3]. Various topical formulations containing VEGF are under development with promising results. Although not commercially available, a recent animal model showed promise in wound healing using a mixture of mesoglycan and VEGF [86].
Bioengineered skin substitutes have been developed for the treatment of acute and chronic wounds. These skin sub­stitute constructs can be a combination of complex matrix products and cells, while others are simply acellular [87]. A Cochrane systematic review provided evidence that some skin substitutes accelerate ulcer healing in conjunction with standard care for diabetic foot ulcers [88].
Placental membranes contain epithelial cells, neonatal broblasts, and mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), promoting wound healing [89]. MSCs produce factors that stimulate migration and proliferation of the main cell types in the wound healing process. MSCs also release hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) to stimulate vascular network formation and pro­vide anti-scarring properties [90]. Studies have shown that MSCs improve tissue repair and skin regeneration and play a critical role in the major wound healing phases. Additionally, MSCs can differentiate into multiple cell types and produce pro-regenerative cytokines. Therefore, MSC-based skin sub­stitutes provide an alternative option to conventional treat­ments for wound healing [91].
The future frontier of wound healing is moving toward the combination of growth factors embedded onto biological scaffolds. Emerging skin and tissue regeneration techniques will use scaffolds activated with growth factors, bioactive molecules, and genetically modied cells to make a more complex wound healing technology possible. They will allow the design of personalized therapy. Emergent technol­ogies for scaffold manufacturing include electrospinning and 3D bioprinting, both of which are undergoing development [92]. It is not unimaginable that 1day replacement tissues and even organs will be readily available. However, until that threshold is crossed, one treating diabetic wounds must still understand the nuances and process of WBP.
386
https://t.me/med1917
K. Riemer and K. Buczkowski
References
1. Singer AJ, Tassiopoulos A, Kirsner RS. Evaluation and manage­ment of lower-extremity ulcers. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(3):302–3.
2. Pecoraro RE, Reiber GE, Burgess EM.Pathways to diabetic limb amputation. Basis for prevention. Diabetes Care. 1990;13:513–21.
3. Barrientos S, Stojadinovic O, Golinko MS, Brem H, Tomic-Canic M.Growth factors and cytokines in wound healing. Wound Repair Regen. 2008;16(05):585–601.
4. Furie B, Furie BC.Mechanisms of thrombus formation. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(09):938–49.
5. Bevilacqua MP, Pober JS, Wheeler ME, Cotran RS, Gimbrone MA Jr. Interleukin 1 acts on cultured human vascular endo­thelium to increase the adhesion of polymorphonuclear leuko­cytes, monocytes, and related leukocyte cell lines. J Clin Invest. 1985;76(05):2003–11.
6. Barman PK, Koh TJ.Macrophage dysregulation and impaired skin wound healing in diabetes. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2020;8:528.
7. Landén NX, Li D, Ståhle M.Transition from inammation to pro­liferation: a critical step during wound healing. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2016;73(20):3861–85.
8. Finnson KW, McLean S, Di Guglielmo GM, Philip A.Dynamics of transforming growth factor beta signaling in wound healing and scarring. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2013;2(05):195–214.
9. Finnson KW, Almadani Y, Philip A.Non-canonical (non-SMAD2/3) TGF-β signaling in brosis: mechanisms and targets. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2020;101:115–22.
10. Carlson MA, Longaker MT. The broblast-populated collagen matrix as a model of wound healing: a review of the evidence. Wound Repair Regen. 2004;12(02):134–47.
11. Broughton G II, Janis JE, Attinger CE.Wound healing: an over­view. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117(7):1e-S–32e-S.
12. Lindstedt E, Sandblom P. Wound healing in man: tensile strength of healing wounds in some patient groups. Ann Surg. 1975;181(06):842–6.
13. Levenson SM, Geever EF, Crowley LV, Oates JF III, Berard CW, Rosen H. The healing of rat skin wounds. Ann Surg. 1965;161(02):293–308.
14. Schultz GS, Sibbald RG, Falanga V, Ayello EA, Dowsett C, Harding K, etal. Wound bed preparation: a systematic approach to wound management. Wound Repair Regen. 2003;11(Suppl. 1):S1–28.
15. Baltzis D, Eleftheriadou I, Veves A.Pathogenesis and treatment of impaired wound healing in diabetes mellitus: new insights. Adv Ther. 2014;31:817–36.
16. Brem H, Tomic-Canic M. Cellular and molecular basis of wound healing in diabetes. J Clin Invest. 2007;117(5):1219–22.
17. Zubair M, Ahmad J.Role of growth factors and cytokines in dia­betic foot ulcer healing: a detailed review. Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2019;20(2):207–17.
18. Wetzler C, Kampfer H, Stallmeyer B, Pfeilschifter J, Frank S.Large and sustained induction of chemokines during impaired wound healing in the genetically diabetic mouse: prolonged persistence of neutrophils and macrophages during the late phase of repair. J Invest Dermatol. 2000;115:245–53.
19. Falanga V. The chronic wound: impaired healing and solutions in the context of wound bed preparation. Blood Cells Mol Dis. 2004;32(1):88–94.
20. Brown DL, Kane CD, Chernausek SD, Greenhalgh DG.Differential expression and localization of insulin-like growth factors I and II in cutaneous wounds of diabetic and nondiabetic mice. Am J Pathol. 1997;151:715–24.
21. Roberts AB. Transforming growth factor-beta: activity and ef­cacy in animal models of wound healing. Wound Repair Regen. 1995;3:408–18.
22. Peplow PV, Baxter GD. Gene expression and release of growth factors during delayed wound healing: a review of studies in diabetic animals and possible combined laser phototherapy and growth factor treatment to enhance healing. Photomed Laser Surg. 2012;30(11):617–36.
23. Semenza GL. HIF-1: mediator of physiological and pathophysi­ological responses to hypoxia. J Appl Physiol. 2000;88:1474–80.
24. Khanna S, Biswas S, Shang Y, Collard E, Azad A, Kauh C, Bhasker V, Gordillo GM, Sen CK, Roy S.Macrophage dysfunction impairs resolution of inammation in the wounds of diabetic mice. PLoS One. 2010;5:e9539.
25. Galiano RD, Tepper OM, Pelo CR, Bhatt KA, Callaghan M, Bastidas N, Bunting S, Steinmetz HG, Gurtner GC. Topical vas­cular endothelial growth factor accelerates diabetic wound healing through increased angiogenesis and by mobilizing and recruiting bone marrow-derived cells. Am J Pathol. 2004;164:1935–47.
26. Drela E, Stankowska K, Kulwas A, Rosc D.Endothelial progenitor cells in diabetic foot syndrome. Adv Clin Exp Med Off Organ Wroc Med Univ. 2012;21:249–54.
27. Sangiorgi S, Manelli A, Reguzzoni M, Ronga M, Protasoni M, Dell’Orbo C.The cutaneous microvascular architecture of human diabetic toe studied by corrosion casting and scanning electron microscopy analysis. Anat Record. 2010;293:1639–45.
28. Beer HD, Longaker MT, Werner S.Reduced expression of PDGF and PDGF receptors during impaired wound healing. J Invest Dermatol. 1997;109:132–8.
29. Balaji S, Han N, Moles C, Shaaban AF, Bollyky PL, Crombleholme TM, Keswani SG.Angiopoietin-1 improves endothelial progeni­tor cell-dependent neovascularization in diabetic wounds. Surgery. 2015;158:846–56.
30. Lobmann R, Zemlin C, Motzkau M, Reschke K, Lehnert H.Expression of matrix metalloproteinases and growth factors in diabetic foot wounds treated with a protease absorbent dressing. J Diabetes Complicat. 2006;20:329–35.
31. Liu Y, Min D, Bolton T, Nubé V, Twigg SM, Yue DK, McLennan SV. Increased matrix metalloproteinase-9 predicts poor wound healing in diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Care. 2009;32:117–9.
32. Dinh T, Tecilazich F, Kafanas A, Doupis J, Gnardellis C, Leal E, etal. Mechanisms involved in the development and healing of dia­betic foot ulceration. Diabetes. 2012;61(11):2937–47.
33. Koh TJ, DiPietro LA.Inammation and wound healing: the role of the macrophage. Expert Rev Mol Med. 2011;13:e23.
34. Wood S, Jayaraman V, Huelsmann EJ, etal. Pro-inammatory che­mokine CCL2 (MCP-1) promotes healing in diabetic wounds by restoring the macrophage response. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e91574.
35. Leung KP, D’Arpa P, Seth AK, Geringer MR, Jett M, Xu W, et al. Dermal wound transcriptomic responses to infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa versus Klebsiella pneumoniae in a rabbit ear wound model. BMC Clin Pathol. 2014;14(1):20.
36. Percival SL, Finnegan S, Donelli G, Vuotto C, Rimmer S, Lipsky BA.Antiseptics for treating infected wounds: efcacy on biolms and effect of pH.Crit Rev Microbiol. 2014;42(2):293–309.
37. Davis SC, Martinez L, Kirsner R. The diabetic foot: the impor­tance of biolms and wound bed preparation. Curr Diab Rep. 2006;6(6):439–45.
38. Shahi SK, Kumar A.Isolation and genetic analysis of multidrug resistant bacteria from diabetic foot ulcers. Front Microbiol. 2015;6(January):1464.
39. Percival SL, McCarty SM, Lipsky B. Biolms and wounds: an overview of the evidence. Adv Wound Care. 2014;4(7):373–81.
40. Patel V, Chivukula IV, Roy S, Khanna S, He GL, Ojha N, et al. Oxygen: from the benets of inducing VEGF expression to managing the risk of hyperbaric stress. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2005;7(9–10):1377–87.