Level of Agreement With a Multi-Test Approach to the Diagnosis of Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis

Diagnostic imaging of the diabetic foot: an EANM evidence-based guidance

PURPOSE

Consensus on the choice of the most accurate imaging strategy in diabetic foot infective and non-infective complications is still lacking. This document provides evidence-based recommendations, aiming at defining which imaging modality should be preferred in different clinical settings.

METHODS

This working group includes 8 nuclear medicine physicians appointed by the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM), 3 radiologists and 3 clinicians (one diabetologist, one podiatrist and one infectious diseases specialist) selected for their expertise in diabetic foot. The latter members formulated some clinical questions that are not completely covered by current guidelines. These questions were converted into statements and addressed through a systematic analysis of available literature by using the PICO (Population/Problem-Intervention/Indicator-Comparator-Outcome) strategy. Each consensus statement was scored for level of evidence and for recommendation grade, according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) criteria.

RESULTS

Nine clinical questions were formulated by clinicians and used to provide 7 evidence-based recommendations: (1) A patient with a positive probe-to-bone test, positive plain X-rays and elevated ESR should be treated for presumptive osteomyelitis (OM). (2) Advanced imaging with MRI and WBC scintigraphy, or [18F]FDG PET/CT, should be considered when it is needed to better evaluate the location, extent or severity of the infection, in order to plan more tailored treatment. (3) In a patient with suspected OM, positive PTB test but negative plain X-rays, advanced imaging with MRI or WBC scintigraphy + SPECT/CT, or with [18F]FDG PET/CT, is needed to accurately assess the extent of the infection. (4) There are no evidence-based data to definitively prefer one imaging modality over the others for detecting OM or STI in fore- mid- and hind-foot. MRI is generally the first advanced imaging modality to be performed. In case of equivocal results, radiolabelled WBC imaging or [18F]FDG PET/CT should be used to detect OM or STI. (5) MRI is the method of choice for diagnosing or excluding Charcot neuro-osteoarthropathy; [18F]FDG PET/CT can be used as an alternative. (6) If assessing whether a patient with a Charcot foot has a superimposed infection, however, WBC scintigraphy may be more accurate than [18F]FDG PET/CT in differentiating OM from Charcot arthropathy. (7) Whenever possible, microbiological or histological assessment should be performed to confirm the diagnosis. (8) Consider appealing to an additional imaging modality in a patient with persisting clinical suspicion of infection, but negative imaging.

CONCLUSION

These practical recommendations highlight, and should assist clinicians in understanding, the role of imaging in the diagnostic workup of diabetic foot complications.

Diagnosis of infection in the foot of patients with diabetes: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Securing an early accurate diagnosis of diabetic foot infections and assessment of their severity are of paramount importance since these infections can cause great morbidity and potential mortality and present formidable challenges in surgical and antimicrobial treatment.

METHODS

In June 2022, we searched the literature using PubMed and EMBASE for published studies on the diagnosis of diabetic foot infection (DFI). On the basis of pre-determined criteria, we reviewed prospective controlled, as well as non-controlled, studies in English. We then developed evidence statements based on the included papers.

RESULTS

We selected a total of 64 papers that met our inclusion criteria. The certainty of the majority of the evidence statements was low because of the weak methodology of nearly all of the studies. The available data suggest that diagnosing diabetic foot infections on the basis of clinical signs and symptoms and classified according to the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot/Infectious Diseases Society of America scheme correlates with the patient's likelihood of the need for hospitalisation, lower extremity amputation, and risk of death. Elevated levels of selected serum inflammatory markers such as erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein and procalcitonin are supportive, but not diagnostic, of soft tissue infection. Culturing tissue samples of soft tissues or bone, when care is taken to avoid contamination, provides more accurate microbiological information than culturing superficial (swab) samples. Although non-culture techniques, especially next-generation sequencing, are likely to identify more bacteria from tissue samples including bone than standard cultures, no studies have established a significant impact on the management of patients with DFIs. In patients with suspected diabetic foot osteomyelitis, the combination of a positive probe-to-bone test and elevated ESR supports this diagnosis. Plain X-ray remains the first-line imaging examination when there is suspicion of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO), but advanced imaging methods including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and nuclear imaging when MRI is not feasible help in cases when either the diagnosis or the localisation of infection is uncertain. Intra-operative or non-per-wound percutaneous biopsy is the best method to accurately identify bone pathogens in case of a suspicion of a DFO. Bedside percutaneous biopsies are effective and safe and are an option to obtain bone culture data when conventional (i.e. surgical or radiological) procedures are not feasible.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this systematic review of the diagnosis of diabetic foot infections provide some guidance for clinicians, but there is still a need for more prospective controlled studies of high quality.

IWGDF/IDSA guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes-related foot infections (IWGDF/IDSA 2023)

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence-based guidelines on the management and prevention of diabetes-related foot diseases since 1999. The present guideline is an update of the 2019 IWGDF guideline on the diagnosis and management of foot infections in persons with diabetes mellitus. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used for the development of this guideline. This was structured around identifying clinically relevant questions in the P(A)ICO format, determining patient-important outcomes, systematically reviewing the evidence, assessing the certainty of the evidence, and finally moving from evidence to the recommendation. This guideline was developed for healthcare professionals involved in diabetes-related foot care to inform clinical care around patient-important outcomes. Two systematic reviews from 2019 were updated to inform this guideline, and a total of 149 studies (62 new) meeting inclusion criteria were identified from the updated search and incorporated in this guideline. Updated recommendations are derived from these systematic reviews, and best practice statements made where evidence was not available. Evidence was weighed in light of benefits and harms to arrive at a recommendation. The certainty of the evidence for some recommendations was modified in this update with a more refined application of the GRADE framework centred around patient important outcomes. This is highlighted in the rationale section of this update. A note is also made where the newly identified evidence did not alter the strength or certainty of evidence for previous recommendations. The recommendations presented here continue to cover various aspects of diagnosing soft tissue and bone infections, including the classification scheme for diagnosing infection and its severity. Guidance on how to collect microbiological samples, and how to process them to identify causative pathogens, is also outlined. Finally, we present the approach to treating foot infections in persons with diabetes, including selecting appropriate empiric and definitive antimicrobial therapy for soft tissue and bone infections; when and how to approach surgical treatment; and which adjunctive treatments may or may not affect the infectious outcomes of diabetes-related foot problems. We believe that following these recommendations will help healthcare professionals provide better care for persons with diabetes and foot infections, prevent the number of foot and limb amputations, and reduce the patient and healthcare burden of diabetes-related foot disease.

Clinical practice recommendations for infectious disease management of diabetic foot infection (DFI) - 2023 SPILF

In march 2020, the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) published an update of the 2015 guidelines on the diagnosis and management of diabetic foot infection (DFI). While we (the French ID society, SPILF) endorsed some of these recommendations, we wanted to update our own 2006 guidelines and specifically provide informative elements on modalities of microbiological diagnosis and antibiotic treatment (especially first- and second-line regiments, oral switch and duration). The recommendations put forward in the present guidelines are addressed to healthcare professionals managing patients with DFI and more specifically focused on infectious disease management of this type of infection, which clearly needs a multidisciplinary approach. Staging of the severity of the infection is mandatory using the classification drawn up by the IWGDF. Microbiological samples should be taken only in the event of clinical signs suggesting infection in accordance with a strict preliminarily established protocol. Empirical antibiotic therapy should be chosen according to the IWGDF grade of infection and duration of the wound, but must always cover methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus. Early reevaluation of the patient is a fundamental step, and duration of antibiotic therapy can be shortened in many situations. When osteomyelitis is suspected, standard foot radiograph is the first-line imagery examination and a bone biopsy should be performed for microbiological documentation. Histological analysis of the bone sample is no longer recommended. High dosages of antibiotics are recommended in cases of confirmed osteomyelitis.

Concordance of bone culture and deep tissue culture during the operation of diabetic foot osteomyelitis and clinical characteristics of patients

PURPOSE

To retrospectively analyze the concordance of bacterial culture between bone tissue and deep soft tissue in diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) patients and clinical characteristics of patients.

METHODS

This study collected samples from 155 patients with suspected DFO (who required amputation after clinical evaluation). Bacterial culture and drug susceptibility tests were performed on the patients' deep soft tissue and bone tissue, and the consistency between the two was compared. In addition, the differences among DFO patients with different degrees of infection were compared classified by the PEDIS classifications.

RESULTS

Among the 155 patients diagnosed with DFO, the positive rate of bone culture was 78.7% (122/155). This study cultured 162 strains, including 73 Gram-positive bacteria, 83 Gram-negative bacteria, and 6 fungi. Staphylococcus aureus (33 strains) was the most common bacteria. The overall agreement between bone culture and tissue culture was 42.8%, with Staphylococcus aureus and Enterobacteria having the best (64.3%) and least agreements (27.3%), respectively. The drug sensitivity results in bone culture showed that Staphylococcus aureus was the main Gram-positive bacteria. The bacteria were sensitive to linezolid and vancomycin. Proteus mirabilis was the main Gram-negative bacteria. These were more sensitive than biapenem and piperacillin/tazobactam. Fungi were more sensitive to voriconazole and itraconazole.

CONCLUSION

The culture results of deep soft tissues near the bone cannot accurately represent the true pathogen of DFO. For DFO patients, bone culture should be taken as much as possible, and appropriate antibiotics should be selected according to the drug susceptibility results.

IWGDF/IDSA Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Diabetes-related Foot Infections (IWGDF/IDSA 2023)

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence-based guidelines on the management and prevention of diabetes-related foot diseases since 1999. The present guideline is an update of the 2019 IWGDF guideline on the diagnosis and management of foot infections in persons with diabetes mellitus. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used for the development of this guideline. This was structured around identifying clinically relevant questions in the P(A)ICO format, determining patient-important outcomes, systematically reviewing the evidence, assessing the certainty of the evidence, and finally moving from evidence to the recommendation. This guideline was developed for healthcare professionals involved in diabetes-related foot care to inform clinical care around patient-important outcomes. Two systematic reviews from 2019 were updated to inform this guideline, and a total of 149 studies (62 new) meeting inclusion criteria were identified from the updated search and incorporated in this guideline. Updated recommendations are derived from these systematic reviews, and best practice statements made where evidence was not available. Evidence was weighed in light of benefits and harms to arrive at a recommendation. The certainty of the evidence for some recommendations was modified in this update with a more refined application of the GRADE framework centred around patient important outcomes. This is highlighted in the rationale section of this update. A note is also made where the newly identified evidence did not alter the strength or certainty of evidence for previous recommendations. The recommendations presented here continue to cover various aspects of diagnosing soft tissue and bone infections, including the classification scheme for diagnosing infection and its severity. Guidance on how to collect microbiological samples, and how to process them to identify causative pathogens, is also outlined. Finally, we present the approach to treating foot infections in persons with diabetes, including selecting appropriate empiric and definitive antimicrobial therapy for soft tissue and bone infections; when and how to approach surgical treatment; and which adjunctive treatments may or may not affect the infectious outcomes of diabetes-related foot problems. We believe that following these recommendations will help healthcare professionals provide better care for persons with diabetes and foot infections, prevent the number of foot and limb amputations, and reduce the patient and healthcare burden of diabetes-related foot disease.

Is the Combination of Plain X-ray and Probe-to-Bone Test Useful for Diagnosing Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the combination of plain X-ray and probe-to-bone (PTB) test for diagnosing diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO). This systematic review has been registered in PROSPERO (a prospective international register of systematic reviews; identification code CRD42023436757). A literature search was conducted for each test separately along with a third search for their combination. A total of 18 articles were found and divided into three groups for separate analysis and comparison. All selected studies were evaluated using STROBE guidelines to assess the quality of reporting for observational studies. Meta-DiSc software was used to analyze the collected data. Concerning the diagnostic accuracy variables for each case, the pooled sensitivity (SEN) was higher for the combination of PTB and plain X-ray [0.94 (PTB + X-ray) vs. 0.91 (PTB) vs. 0.76 (X-ray)], as was the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) (82.212 (PTB + X-ray) vs. 57.444 (PTB) vs. 4.897 (X-ray)). The specificity (SPE) and positive likelihood ratio (LR+) were equally satisfactory for the diagnostic combination but somewhat lower than for PTB alone (SPE: 0.83 (PTB + X-ray) vs. 0.86 (PTB) vs. 0.76 (X-ray); LR+: 5.684 (PTB + X-ray) vs. 6.344 (PTB) vs. 1.969 (X-ray)). The combination of PTB and plain X-ray showed high diagnostic accuracy comparable to that of MRI and histopathology diagnosis (the gold standard), so it could be considered useful for the diagnosis of DFO. In addition, this diagnostic combination is accessible and inexpensive but requires training and experience to correctly interpret the results. Therefore, recommendations for this technique should be included in the context of specialized units with a high prevalence of DFO.

Ultrasonographic features of diabetic foot osteomyelitis: a case series

OBJECTIVE

Osteomyelitis is a limb-threatening complication of diabetic foot ulcers. Early identification of the disease is key to ensuring successful prognosis. In this study, we describe ultrasonographic features for the identification of osteomyelitis.

METHOD

Patients were screened through clinical, ultrasonographic and probe-to-bone tests.

RESULTS

Ultrasonographic features in three patients that could be used to identify diabetic foot osteomyelitis included periosteal reaction, periosteal elevation, cortical erosions and presence of sequestrum, all of which were confirmed by a plain X-ray.

CONCLUSION

An ultrasonographic examination could be used for the early detection of osteomyelitis, which could help clinicians devise prompt treatment strategies.

Pathophysiology and Molecular Imaging of Diabetic Foot Infections

Diabetic foot infection is the leading cause of non-traumatic lower limb amputations worldwide. In addition, diabetes mellitus and sequela of the disease are increasing in prevalence. In 2017, 9.4% of Americans were diagnosed with diabetes mellitus (DM). The growing pervasiveness and financial implications of diabetic foot infection (DFI) indicate an acute need for improved clinical assessment and treatment. Complex pathophysiology and suboptimal specificity of current non-invasive imaging modalities have made diagnosis and treatment response challenging. Current anatomical and molecular clinical imaging strategies have mainly targeted the host's immune responses rather than the unique metabolism of the invading microorganism. Advances in imaging have the potential to reduce the impact of these problems and improve the assessment of DFI, particularly in distinguishing infection of soft tissue alone from osteomyelitis (OM). This review presents a summary of the known pathophysiology of DFI, the molecular basis of current and emerging diagnostic imaging techniques, and the mechanistic links of these imaging techniques to the pathophysiology of diabetic foot infections.

Pathophysiology and Molecular Imaging of Diabetic Foot Infections

Diabetic foot infection is the leading cause of non-traumatic lower limb amputations worldwide. In addition, diabetes mellitus and sequela of the disease are increasing in prevalence. In 2017, 9.4% of Americans were diagnosed with diabetes mellitus (DM). The growing pervasiveness and financial implications of diabetic foot infection (DFI) indicate an acute need for improved clinical assessment and treatment. Complex pathophysiology and suboptimal specificity of current non-invasive imaging modalities have made diagnosis and treatment response challenging. Current anatomical and molecular clinical imaging strategies have mainly targeted the host's immune responses rather than the unique metabolism of the invading microorganism. Advances in imaging have the potential to reduce the impact of these problems and improve the assessment of DFI, particularly in distinguishing infection of soft tissue alone from osteomyelitis (OM). This review presents a summary of the known pathophysiology of DFI, the molecular basis of current and emerging diagnostic imaging techniques, and the mechanistic links of these imaging techniques to the pathophysiology of diabetic foot infections.

MRI and Clinical Risk Indicators for Osteomyelitis

Introduction. The sensitivity and specificity for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) diagnosis of osteomyelitis is 90% and 80%, respectively; findings include bone marrow edema, T2-weighted image hyperintensity (HI-T2WI), T1-weighted image confluent signal(CS-T1WI), and cortical erosion (CE). The goal is to determine which risk factors and MRI findings are most predictive of osteomyelitis. Materials and Methods. After institutional review board approval, records of patients who underwent bone biopsy of the foot/ankle between 2015 and 2017 were reviewed. Diagnosis was determined histologically. Blinded MRI review identified indicators of osteomyelitis: HI-T2WI, CS-T1WI, ulcer depth, and CE. Bivariate and multivariate regression determined an association between osteomyelitis and radiographic indicators. Results. Of 59 subjects, 41 (69.5%) and 18 (30.5%) had pathologic evidence of osteomyelitis or were indeterminate. The sensitivity and specificity by radiologist diagnosis was 51.4% and 91.7%, respectively. Diabetes (relative risk [RR]=2.9, 95% CI = 1.0.8-7.77, P = .034), CS-T1WI (RR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.23-2.20, P < .001), and CE (RR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.34-2.28, P < .001) were risk factors on bivariate analysis. Ulcer depth demonstrated a trend toward statistical significance. Diabetes (RR = 2.4, 95% CI = 1.00-5.69, P = .049) and CE (RR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.27-2.37, P < .001) were independent risk factors on multivariate analysis. Discussion. Diabetes and CS-T1WI are independent risk factors for pedal osteomyelitis. Patients with diabetes, CS-T1WI, and CE should be evaluated for osteomyelitis with recommendation for bone biopsy in appropriate clinical settings.Levels of Evidence: Level III Retrospective Comparative Study.

Percutaneous Bone Biopsy for Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Diabetes is the leading cause of lower extremity nontraumatic amputation globally, and diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) is usually the terminal event before limb loss. Although guidelines recommend percutaneous bone biopsy (PBB) for microbiological diagnosis of DFO in several common scenarios, it is unclear how frequently PBBs yield positive cultures and whether they cause harm or improve outcomes.

Methods

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Trials databases for articles in any language published up to December 31, 2019, reporting the frequency of culture-positive PBBs. We calculated the pooled proportion of culture-positive PBBs using a random-effects meta-analysis model and reported on PBB-related adverse events, DFO outcomes, and antibiotic adjustment based on PBB culture results where available.

Results

Among 861 articles, 11 studies met inclusion criteria and included 780 patients with 837 PBBs. Mean age ranged between 56.6 and 71.0 years old. The proportion of males ranged from 62% to 86%. All studies were longitudinal observational cohorts, and 10 were from Europe. The range of culture-positive PBBs was 56%-99%, and the pooled proportion of PBBs with a positive culture was 84% (95% confidence interval, 73%-91%). There was heterogeneity between studies and no consistency in definitions used to define adverse events. Impact of PBB on DFO outcomes or antibiotic management were seldom reported.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis suggests PBBs have a high yield of culture-positive results. However, this is an understudied topic, especially in low- and middle-income countries, and the current literature provides very limited data regarding procedure safety and impact on clinical outcomes or antibiotic management.

Performance of a rapid two-sequence screening protocol for osteomyelitis of the foot

OBJECTIVE

Compare a two sequence protocol to a standard protocol in the detection of pedal osteomyelitis (OM) and abscesses and to identify patients that benefit from a full protocol.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred thirty-two foot MRIs ordered to assess for OM were enrolled, and the following items were extracted from the clinical reports: use of IV contrast, the presence of OM, reactive osteitis, and a soft tissue abscess. Using only one T1 nonfat-suppressed and one fluid sensitive fat-suppressed sequences, two experienced musculoskeletal radiologists reviewed each case for the presence of OM, reactive osteitis, or an abscess. A Kappa test was calculated to assess for interobserver agreement, and diagnostic performance was determined. The McNemar test was used to assess for the effect of contrast.

RESULTS

Agreement between both observers and the clinical report on the presence of osteomyelitis was substantial ( k = 0.63 and 0.72, p < 0.001), while the agreement for abscess was fair (k = 0.29 and 0.38, p < 0.001). For osteomyelitis, both observers showed good accuracy (0.85 and 0.86). When screening bone for a normal versus abnormal case, this method was highly sensitive (0.97-0.98), but was less sensitive for abscess (0.63-0.75). Fifty-one percent of exams used contrast, and it did impact the diagnosis of abscess for one observer.

CONCLUSION

This rapid protocol is accurate in making the diagnosis of OM, and its high sensitivity makes it useful to screen for patients that would benefit from a full protocol.

Diagnosis of infection in the foot in diabetes: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Securing an early accurate diagnosis of diabetic foot infections and assessment of their severity are of paramount importance since these infections can cause great morbidity and potentially mortality and present formidable challenges in surgical and antimicrobial treatment.

METHODS

In June 2018, we searched the literature using PuEbMed and EMBASE for published studies on the diagnosis of diabetic foot infection. On the basis of predetermined criteria, we reviewed prospective controlled, as well as noncontrolled, studies in any language, seeking translations for those not in English. We then developed evidence statements on the basis of the included papers.

RESULTS

From the 4242 records screened, we selected 35 papers that met our inclusion criteria. The quality of all but one of the evidence statements was low because of the weak methodology of nearly all of the studies. The available data suggest that diagnosing diabetic foot infections on the basis of clinical signs and symptoms and classified according to the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot scheme correlates with the patient's likelihood of ulcer healing, of lower extremity amputation, and risk of death. Elevated levels of selected serum inflammatory markers are supportive, but not diagnostic, of soft tissue or bone infection. In patients with suspected diabetic foot osteomyelitis, both a positive probe-to-bone test and an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate are strongly associated with its presence. Culturing tissue samples of soft tissues or bone, when care is taken to avoid contamination, provides more accurate microbiological information than culturing superficial (swab) samples. Plain X-ray remains the first-line imaging examination when there is suspicion of diabetic foot osteomyelitis, but advanced imaging methods help in cases when either the diagnosis or the localization of infection is uncertain.

CONCLUSION

The results of this first reported systematic review on the diagnosis of diabetic foot infections provide some guidance for clinicians, but there is a need for more prospective controlled studies of high quality.

Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of foot infection in persons with diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update)

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence-based guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease since 1999. This guideline is on the diagnosis and treatment of foot infection in persons with diabetes and updates the 2015 IWGDF infection guideline. On the basis of patient, intervention, comparison, outcomes (PICOs) developed by the infection committee, in conjunction with internal and external reviewers and consultants, and on systematic reviews the committee conducted on the diagnosis of infection (new) and treatment of infection (updated from 2015), we offer 27 recommendations. These cover various aspects of diagnosing soft tissue and bone infection, including the classification scheme for diagnosing infection and its severity. Of note, we have updated this scheme for the first time since we developed it 15 years ago. We also review the microbiology of diabetic foot infections, including how to collect samples and to process them to identify causative pathogens. Finally, we discuss the approach to treating diabetic foot infections, including selecting appropriate empiric and definitive antimicrobial therapy for soft tissue and for bone infections, when and how to approach surgical treatment, and which adjunctive treatments we think are or are not useful for the infectious aspects of diabetic foot problems. For this version of the guideline, we also updated four tables and one figure from the 2016 guideline. We think that following the principles of diagnosing and treating diabetic foot infections outlined in this guideline can help clinicians to provide better care for these patients.