Effect of ramipril on walking times and quality of life among patients with peripheral artery disease and intermittent claudication : a randomized controlled trial

Importance Approximately one-third of patients with peripheral artery disease experience intermittent claudication, with consequent loss of quality of life. Objective To determine the efficacy of ramipril for improving walking ability, patient-perceived walking performance, and quality of life in patients with claudication. Design, Setting, and Patients Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted among 212 patients with peripheral artery disease (mean age, 65.5 [SD, 6.2] years), initiated in May 2008 and completed in August 2011 and conducted at 3 hospitals in Australia. Intervention Patients were randomized to receive 10 mg/d of ramipril (n = 106) or matching placebo (n = 106) for 24 weeks. Main Outcome Measures Maximum and pain-free walking times were recorded during a standard treadmill test. The Walking Impairment Questionnaire (WIQ) and Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) were used to assess walking ability and quality of life, respectively. Results At 6 months, relative to placebo, ramipril was associated with a 75-second (95% CI, 60-89 seconds) increase in mean pain-free walking time (P < .001) and a 255-second (95% CI, 215-295 seconds) increase in maximum walking time (P < .001). Relative to placebo, ramipril improved the WIQ median distance score by 13.8 (Hodges-Lehmann 95% CI, 12.2-15.5), speed score by 13.3 (95% CI, 11.9-15.2), and stair climbing score by 25.2 (95% CI, 25.1-29.4) (P < .001 for all). The overall SF-36 median Physical Component Summary score improved by 8.2 (Hodges-Lehmann 95% CI, 3.6-11.4; P = .02) in the ramipril group relative to placebo. Ramipril did not affect the overall SF-36 median Mental Component Summary score. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with intermittent claudication, 24-week treatment with ramipril resulted in significant increases in pain-free and maximum treadmill walking times compared with placebo. This was associated with a significant increase in the physical functioning component of the SF-36 score. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00681226

The Queensland high risk foot form (QHRFF): Is it a reliable and valid clinical research tool for foot disease?

Background Foot disease complications, such as foot ulcers and infection, contribute to considerable morbidity and mortality. These complications are typically precipitated by “high-risk factors”, such as peripheral neuropathy and peripheral arterial disease. High-risk factors are more prevalent in specific “at risk” populations such as diabetes, kidney disease and cardiovascular disease. To the best of the authors’ knowledge a tool capturing multiple high-risk factors and foot disease complications in multiple at risk populations has yet to be tested. This study aimed to develop and test the validity and reliability of a Queensland High Risk Foot Form (QHRFF) tool. Methods The study was conducted in two phases. Phase one developed a QHRFF using an existing diabetes foot disease tool, literature searches, stakeholder groups and expert panel. Phase two tested the QHRFF for validity and reliability. Four clinicians, representing different levels of expertise, were recruited to test validity and reliability. Three cohorts of patients were recruited; one tested criterion measure reliability (n = 32), another tested criterion validity and inter-rater reliability (n = 43), and another tested intra-rater reliability (n = 19). Validity was determined using sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values (PPV). Reliability was determined using Kappa, weighted Kappa and intra-class correlation (ICC) statistics. Results A QHRFF tool containing 46 items across seven domains was developed. Criterion measure reliability of at least moderate categories of agreement (Kappa > 0.4; ICC > 0.75) was seen in 91% (29 of 32) tested items. Criterion validity of at least moderate categories (PPV > 0.7) was seen in 83% (60 of 72) tested items. Inter- and intra-rater reliability of at least moderate categories (Kappa > 0.4; ICC > 0.75) was seen in 88% (84 of 96) and 87% (20 of 23) tested items respectively. Conclusions The QHRFF had acceptable validity and reliability across the majority of items; particularly items identifying relevant co-morbidities, high-risk factors and foot disease complications. Recommendations have been made to improve or remove identified weaker items for future QHRFF versions. Overall, the QHRFF possesses suitable practicality, validity and reliability to assess and capture relevant foot disease items across multiple at risk populations.

The association of chronic kidney disease and dialysis treatment with foot ulceration and major amputation

Objective The objective of this study was to investigate the risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 4-5 and dialysis treatment on incidence of foot ulceration and major lower extremity amputation in comparison to CKD stage 3. Methods In this retrospective study, all individuals who visited our hospital between 2006 and 2012 because of CKD stages 3 to 5 or dialysis treatment were included. Medical records were reviewed for incidence of foot ulceration and major amputation. The time from CKD 3, CKD 4-5, and dialysis treatment until first foot ulceration and first major lower extremity amputation was calculated and analyzed by Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariate Cox proportional hazards model. Diabetes mellitus, peripheral arterial disease, peripheral neuropathy, and foot deformities were included for potential confounding. Results A total of 669 individuals were included: 539 in CKD 3, 540 in CKD 4-5, and 259 in dialysis treatment (individuals could progress from one group to the next). Unadjusted foot ulcer incidence rates per 1000 patients per year were 12 for CKD 3, 47 for CKD 4-5, and 104 for dialysis (P < .001). In multivariate analyses, the hazard ratio for incidence of foot ulceration was 4.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6-6.3) in CKD 4-5 and 7.6 (95% CI, 4.8-12.1) in dialysis treatment compared with CKD 3. Hazard ratios for incidence of major amputation were 9.5 (95% CI, 2.1-43.0) and 15 (95% CI, 3.3-71.0), respectively. Conclusions CKD 4-5 and dialysis treatment are independent risk factors for foot ulceration and major amputation compared with CKD 3. Maximum effort is needed in daily clinical practice to prevent foot ulcers and their devastating consequences in all individuals with CKD 4-5 or dialysis treatment.

Prevalence of foot disease and risk factors in general inpatient populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: To systematically review studies reporting the prevalence in general adult inpatient populations of foot disease disorders (foot wounds, foot infections, collective ‘foot disease’) and risk factors (peripheral arterial disease (PAD), peripheral neuropathy (PN), foot deformity). Methods: A systematic review of studies published between 1980 and 2013 was undertaken using electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL). Keywords and synonyms relating to prevalence, inpatients, foot disease disorders and risk factors were used. Studies reporting foot disease or risk factor prevalence data in general inpatient populations were included. Included study's reference lists and citations were searched and experts consulted to identify additional relevant studies. 2 authors, blinded to each other, assessed the methodological quality of included studies. Applicable data were extracted by 1 author and checked by a second author. Prevalence proportions and SEs were calculated for all included studies. Pooled prevalence estimates were calculated using random-effects models where 3 eligible studies were available. Results: Of the 4972 studies initially identified, 78 studies reporting 84 different cohorts (total 60 231 517 participants) were included. Foot disease prevalence included: foot wounds 0.01–13.5% (70 cohorts), foot infections 0.05–6.4% (7 cohorts), collective foot disease 0.2–11.9% (12 cohorts). Risk factor prevalence included: PAD 0.01–36.0% (10 cohorts), PN 0.003–2.8% (6 cohorts), foot deformity was not reported. Pooled prevalence estimates were only able to be calculated for pressure ulcer-related foot wounds 4.6% (95% CI 3.7% to 5.4%)), diabetes-related foot wounds 2.4% (1.5% to 3.4%), diabetes-related foot infections 3.4% (0.2% to 6.5%), diabetes-related foot disease 4.7% (0.3% to 9.2%). Heterogeneity was high in all pooled estimates (I2=94.2–97.8%, p<0.001). Conclusions: This review found high heterogeneity, yet suggests foot disease was present in 1 in every 20 inpatients and a major risk factor in 1 in 3 inpatients. These findings are likely an underestimate and more robust studies are required to provide more precise estimates.

How many inpatients in our hospitals have foot complications? The foot disease in inpatients study

Background Foot complications have been found to affect large proportions of hospital in patients with diabetes. However, no studies have investigated the proportion of foot complications affecting all people in general inpatient populations. The aims of this cross-sectional study were to investigate the point-prevalence of different foot complications in general inpatient populations, analyse differences in diabetes and non-diabetes sub-groups, and examine characteristics of people primarily admitted for a foot complication. Methods Eligible participants were all adults admitted overnight, for any reason, into five diverse hospitals on one day; excluding maternity, mental health and cognitively impaired patients. All participants underwent a physical foot examination, by trained podiatrists using validated measures, to clinically diagnose different foot complications; including foot wounds, infections, deformity, peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and peripheral neuropathy (PN). Data were also collected on participants' primary reason for admission and a range of demographic, social determinant, medical history, foot complication history, self-care and footwear risk factors. Results Overall, 733 participants consented (83% of eligible participants); mean(±SD) age 62(±19) years, 480 (55.8%) male and 172 (23.5%) had diabetes. Foot complication prevalence included: wounds 9.0% (95% CI) (5.1-8.7), infections 3.3% (2.2-4.9), deformity 22.4% (19.5-26.7), PAD 21.0% (18.2-24.1) and PN 22.0% (19.1-25.1). Diabetes populations had significantly more foot complications than non-diabetes (p < 0.01); wounds (15.7% vs 7.0%), infections (7.1% vs 2.2%), deformity (30.5% vs 19.9%), PAD (35.1% vs 16.7%) and PN (43.3% vs 15.4%). Foot complications were the primary reason for admission in 7.4% (95% CI) (5.7-9.5) of all participants. In a backwards stepwise multivariate analysis having a foot complication as the primary reason for admission was independently associated (OR (95% CI) with foot wounds (18.9 (7.3-48.7)), foot infections (6.0 (1.6-22.4)), history of amputation (4.7 (1.3-17.0) and PAD (2.9 (1.3-6.6)). Conclusions Findings of this study indicate one in every ten hospital inpatients had an active foot wound or infection. In patients with diabetes had significantly higher proportions of foot complications than non-diabetes inpatients. Remarkably one in every thirteen inpatients in this study were primarily hospitalised for a foot complication. Further research and policy is required to tackle this seemingly large inpatient foot complication burden.

What kind of sick person would see a Foot Doctor! The Foot Disease in Inpatients Study (FDIS)

Background Many different guidelines recommend people with foot complications, or those at risk, should attend multiple health professionals for foot care each year. However, few studies have investigated the characteristics of those attending health professionals for foot care and if those characteristics match those requiring foot care as per guideline recommendations. The aim of this paper was to determine the associated characteristics of people who attended a health professional for foot care in the year prior to their hospitalisation. Methods Eligible participants were all adults admitted overnight, for any reason, into five diverse hospitals on one day; excluding maternity, mental health and cognitively impaired patients. Participants underwent a foot examination to clinically diagnose different foot complications; including wounds, infections, deformity, peripheral arterial disease and peripheral neuropathy. They were also surveyed on social determinant, medical history, self-care, foot complication history, and, past health professional attendance for foot care in the year prior to hospitalisation. Results Overall, 733 participants consented; mean(±SD) age 62(±19) years, 408 (55.8%) male, 172 (23.5%) diabetes. Two hundred and fifty-six (34.9% (95% CI) (31.6-38.4)) participants had attended a health professional for foot care; including attending podiatrists 180 (24.5%), GPs 93 (24.6%), and surgeons 36 (4.9%). In backwards stepwise multivariate analyses attending any health professional for foot care was independently associated (OR (95% CI)) with diabetes (3.0 (2.1-4.5)), arthritis (1.8 (1.3-2.6)), mobility impairment (2.0 (1.4-2.9)) and previous foot ulcer (5.4 (2.9-10.0)). Attending a podiatrist was independently associated with female gender (2.6 (1.7-3.9)), increasing years of age (1.06 (1.04-1.08), diabetes (5.0 (3.2-7.9)), arthritis (2.0 (1.3-3.0)), hypertension (1.7 (1.1-2.6) and previous foot ulcer (4.5 (2.4-8.1). While attending a GP was independently associated with having a foot ulcer (10.4 (5.6-19.2). Conclusions Promisingly these findings indicate that people with a diagnosis of diabetes and arthritis are more likely to attend health professionals for foot care. However, it also appears those with active foot complications, or significant risk factors, may not be more likely to receive the multi-disciplinary foot care recommended by guidelines. More concerted efforts are required to ensure all people with foot complications are receiving recommended foot care.

Mobility impairment and bad feet … who'd of guessed? The Foot Disease in Inpatients Study (FDIS)

Background Foot complications have been found to be predictors of mobility impairment and falls in community dwelling elderly patients. However, fewer studies have investigated the link between foot complications and mobility impairment in hospital in patient populations. The aim of this paper was to investigate the associations between mobility impairment and various foot complications in general inpatient populations. Methods Eligible participants were all adults admitted overnight, for any reason, into five diverse hospitals on one day; excluding maternity, mental health and cognitively impaired patients. Participants underwent a foot examination to clinically diagnose different foot complications; including foot wounds, infections, deformity, peripheral arterial disease and peripheral neuropathy. They were also surveyed on social determinant, medical history, self-care, footwear, foot complication history risk factors, and, mobility impairment defined as requiring a mobility aid for mobilisation prior to hospitalisation. Results Overall, 733 participants consented; mean(±SD) age 62(±19) years, 408 (55.8%) male, 172 (23.5%) diabetes. Mobility impairment was present in 242 (33.2%) participants; diabetes populations reported more mobility impairment than non-diabetes populations (40.7% vs 30.9%, p < 0.05). In a backwards stepwise multivariate analysis, and controlling for other risk factors, those people with mobility impairment were independently associated with increasing years of age (OR = 1.04 (95% CI) (1.02-1.05)), male gender (OR = 1.7 (1.2-2.5)), being born in Australia (OR = 1.7 (1.1-2.8), vision impairment (2.0 (1.2-3.1)), peripheral neuropathy (OR = 3.1 (2.0-4.6) and foot deformity (OR = 2.0 (1.3-3.0). Conclusions These findings support the results of other large studies investigating community dwelling elderly patients that peripheral neuropathy and foot deformity are independently associated with mobility impairment and potentially falls. Furthermore the findings suggest routine clinical diagnosis of foot complications as defined by national diabetic foot guidelines were sufficient to determine these associated foot complication risk factors for mobility impairment. Further research is required to establish if these foot complication risk factors for mobility impairment are predictors of actual falls in the inpatient environment.

Social determinants of health and diabetic foot disease

Background Diabetic foot disease (DFD) is the leading cause of hospitalisation and lower extremity amputation (LEA) in people with diabetes. Many studies have established the relationship between DFD and clinical risk factors, such as peripheral neuropathy and peripheral arterial disease. Other studies have identified the relationship between diabetes and non-clinical risk factors termed social determinants of health (SDoH), such as socioeconomic status. However, it appears very few studies have investigated the relationship between DFD and SDoH. This paper aims to review the existing literature investigating the relationship between DFD and the SDoH factors socioeconomic status (SES), race and geographical remoteness (remoteness). Process Electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PubMed) were searched for studies reporting SES, race (including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander in Australia) and remoteness and their relationship to DFD and LEA. Exclusion criteria were studies conducted in developing countries and studies published prior to 2000. Findings Forty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed; 10 in Australia. Overall, 28 (58%) studies investigated LEA, 10 (21%) DFD, and 10 (21%) DFD and LEA as the DFD-related outcome. Thirty-six (75%) studies investigated the SDoH risk factor of race, 22 (46%) SES, and 20 (42%) remoteness. SES, race and remoteness were found to be individually associated with LEA and DFD in the majority of studies. Only four studies investigated interactions between SES, race and remoteness and DFD with contrasting findings. All four studies used only LEA as their investigated outcome. No Australian studies investigate the interaction of all three SDoH risk factors on DFD outcomes. Conclusions The SDoH risk factors of SES, race and GR appear to be individually associated with DFD. However, only few studies investigated the interaction of these three major SDoH risk factors and DFD outcomes with contrasting results. There is a clear gap in this area of DFD research and particularly in Australia. Until urgent future research is performed, current practice and policy does not adequately take into consideration the implication of SDoH on DFD.

Physiological and symptomatic responses to cycling and walking in intermittent claudication

To shed light on the potential efficacy of cycling as a testing modality in the treatment of intermittent claudication (IC), this study compared physiological and symptomatic responses to graded walking and cycling tests in claudicants. Sixteen subjects with peripheral arterial disease (resting ankle: brachial index (ABI) < 0.9) and IC completed a maximal graded treadmill walking (T) and cycle (C) test after three familiarization tests on each mode. During each test, symptoms, oxygen uptake (VO2), minute ventilation (VE), respiratory exchange ratio (RER) and heart rate (HR) were measured, and for 10 min after each test the brachial and ankle systolic pressures were recorded. All but one subject experienced calf pain as the primary limiting symptom during T; whereas the symptoms were more varied during C and included thigh pain, calf pain and dyspnoea. Although maximal exercise time was significantly longer on C than T (690 +/- 67 vs. 495 +/- 57 s), peak VO2, peak VE and peak heart rate during C and T were not different; whereas peak RER was higher during C. These responses during C and T were also positively correlated (P < 0.05) with each other, with the exception of RER. The postexercise systolic pressures were also not different between C and T. However, the peak decline in ankle pressures from resting values after C and T were not correlated with each other. These data demonstrate that cycling and walking induce a similar level of metabolic and cardiovascular strain, but that the primary limiting symptoms and haemodynamic response in an individual's extremity, measured after exercise, can differ substantially between these two modes.

What are the key conditions associated with lower limb amputations in a major Australian teaching hospital?

Background Lower extremity amputation results in significant global morbidity and mortality. Australia appears to have a paucity of studies investigating lower extremity amputation. The primary aim of this retrospective study was to investigate key conditions associated with lower extremity amputations in an Australian population. Secondary objectives were to determine the influence of age and sex on lower extremity amputations, and the reliability of hospital coded amputations. Methods: Lower extremity amputation cases performed at the Princess Alexandra Hospital (Brisbane, Australia) between July 2006 and June 2007 were identified through the relevant hospital discharge dataset (n = 197). All eligible clinical records were interrogated for age, sex, key condition associated with amputation, amputation site, first ever amputation status and the accuracy of the original hospital coding. Exclusion criteria included records unavailable for audit and cases where the key condition was unable to be determined. Chi-squared, t-tests, ANOVA and post hoc tests were used to determine differences between groups. Kappa statistics were used to measure reliability between coded and audited amputations. A minimum significance level of p < 0.05 was used throughout. Results: One hundred and eighty-six cases were eligible and audited. Overall 69% were male, 56% were first amputations, 54% were major amputations, and mean age was 62 ± 16 years. Key conditions associated included type 2 diabetes (53%), peripheral arterial disease (non-diabetes) (18%), trauma (8%), type 1 diabetes (7%) and malignant tumours (5%). Differences in ages at amputation were associated with trauma 36 ± 10 years, type 1 diabetes 52 ± 12 years and type 2 diabetes 67 ± 10 years (p < 0.01). Reliability of original hospital coding was high with Kappa values over 0.8 for all variables. Conclusions: This study, the first in over 20 years to report on all levels of lower extremity amputations in Australia, found that people undergoing amputation are more likely to be older, male and have diabetes. It is recommended that large prospective studies are implemented and national lower extremity amputation rates are established to address the large preventable burden of lower extremity amputation in Australia.

Intensive versus conventional glycaemic control for treating diabetic foot ulcers

Background The estimated likelihood of lower limb amputation is 10 to 30 times higher amongst people with diabetes compared to those without diabetes. Of all non-traumatic amputations in people with diabetes, 85% are preceded by a foot ulcer. Foot ulceration associated with diabetes (diabetic foot ulcers) is caused by the interplay of several factors, most notably diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and changes in foot structure. These factors have been linked to chronic hyperglycaemia (high levels of glucose in the blood) and the altered metabolic state of diabetes. Control of hyperglycaemia may be important in the healing of ulcers. Objectives To assess the effects of intensive glycaemic control compared to conventional control on the outcome of foot ulcers in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Search methods In December 2015 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; EBSCO CINAHL; Elsevier SCOPUS; ISI Web of Knowledge Web of Science; BioMed Central and LILACS. We also searched clinical trial databases, pharmaceutical trial databases and current international and national clinical guidelines on diabetes foot management for relevant published, non-published, ongoing and terminated clinical trials. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication or study setting. Selection criteria Published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were considered for inclusion where they investigated the effects of intensive glycaemic control on the outcome of active foot ulcers in people with diabetes. Non randomised and quasi-randomised trials were excluded. In order to be included the trial had to have: 1) attempted to maintain or control blood glucose levels and measured changes in markers of glycaemic control (HbA1c or fasting, random, mean, home capillary or urine glucose), and 2) documented the effect of these interventions on active foot ulcer outcomes. Glycaemic interventions included subcutaneous insulin administration, continuous insulin infusion, oral anti-diabetes agents, lifestyle interventions or a combination of these interventions. The definition of the interventional (intensive) group was that it should have a lower glycaemic target than the comparison (conventional) group. Data collection and analysis All review authors independently evaluated the papers identified by the search strategy against the inclusion criteria. Two review authors then independently reviewed all potential full-text articles and trials registry results for inclusion. Main results We only identified one trial that met the inclusion criteria but this trial did not have any results so we could not perform the planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses in the absence of data. Two ongoing trials were identified which may provide data for analyses in a later version of this review. The completion date of these trials is currently unknown. Authors' conclusions The current review failed to find any completed randomised clinical trials with results. Therefore we are unable to conclude whether intensive glycaemic control when compared to conventional glycaemic control has a positive or detrimental effect on the treatment of foot ulcers in people with diabetes. Previous evidence has however highlighted a reduction in risk of limb amputation (from various causes) in people with type 2 diabetes with intensive glycaemic control. Whether this applies to people with foot ulcers in particular is unknown. The exact role that intensive glycaemic control has in treating foot ulcers in multidisciplinary care (alongside other interventions targeted at treating foot ulcers) requires further investigation.