Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Review of the Eurodiale Studies: What Lessons for Diabetic Foot Care?

  • Published:
Current Diabetes Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The prevalence of diabetes has been increasing at an alarming rate worldwide. Treatment of diabetes-related complications adds a huge financial burden on our health services, made worse in the current financial climate. The Eurodiale (European Study Group on Diabetes and the Lower Extremity) study was a prospective observational study conducted in 14 European centers in 2003 to 2004 and included data on characteristics of diabetic patients with foot ulcers, diagnostic and management procedures, health care organization, quality of life, and resource use. This was the first large multicenter study, included 1232 patients, and used an integrated approach for a multiorgan disease. The study has provided new insights into the intricacies involved in managing diabetic foot ulcers and how care can be improved. It has shown the differences in quality of care provided in different centers and also highlighted the need for more specific guidance related to diabetic foot disease.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. International Diabetes Federation (IDF): 2009. Diabetes Atlas. http://www.diabetesatlas.org/.

  2. Boulton AJ, Vileikyte L, Ragnarson-Tennvall G. Apelqvist: the global burden of diabetic foot disease. Lancet. 2005;366:1719–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dang CN, Boulton AJ. Changing perspectives in diabetic foot ulcer management. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2003;2:4–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pinzur MS, Slovenkai MP, Trepman E, Shields NN. Guidelines for diabetic foot care: recommendations endorsed by the Diabetes Committee of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society. Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26(1):113–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Singh N, Armstrong DG, Lipsky BA. Preventing foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. JAMA. 2005;293:217–28.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. • Vamos EP, Bottle A, Majeed A, Millett C. Trends in lower extremity amputations in people with and without diabetes in England, 1996–2005. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice. 2010;87(2):275–82. The study showed that the number of both minor and major amputations in type 1 diabetes and nondiabetes-related amputations decreased during the study period but in patients with type 2 diabetes there was a significant increase, thereby highlighting the importance of diabetes prevention strategies and controlling risk factors for lower extremity amputations in people with diabetes.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Boulton AJ. The diabetic foot: from art to science. The 18th Camillo Golgi lecture. Diabetologia. 2004;47:1343–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Beckert S, Witte M, Wicke C, et al. A new wound-based severity score for diabetic foot ulcers: a prospective analysis of 1,000 patients. Diabetes Care. 2006;29:988–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Moulik PK, Mtonga R, Gill GV. Amputation and mortality in new-onset diabetic foot ulcers stratified by etiology. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:491–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Oyibo SO, Jude EB, Tarawneh I, et al. The effects of ulcer size and site, patient’s age, sex and type and duration of diabetes on the outcome of diabetic foot ulcers. Diabet Med. 2001;18:133–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Oyibo SO, Jude EB, Tarawneh I, et al. A comparison of two diabetic foot ulcer classification systems: the Wagner and the University of Texaswound classification systems. Diabetes Care. 2001;24:84–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Armstrong DG, Lavery LA, Harkless LB. Validation of a diabetic wound classification system. The contribution of depth, infection, and ischaemia to risk of amputation. Diabetes Care. 1998;21:855–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Apelqvist J, Larsson J, Agardh CD. The importance of peripheral pulses, peripheral oedema and local pain for the outcome of diabetic foot ulcers. Diabet Med. 1990;7:590–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Frykberg RG. An evidence-based approach to diabetic foot infections. Am J Surg. 2003;186(5A):44S–54S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Apelqvist J, Larsson J, Agardh CD. Long-term prognosis for diabetic patients with foot ulcers. J Intern Med. 1993;233(6):485–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ramsey SD, Newton K, Blough D, et al. Incidence, outcomes, and cost of foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1999;22:382–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Margolis DJ, Allen-Taylor L, Hoffstad O, Berlin JA. Diabetic neuropathic foot ulcers: the association of wound size, wound duration, and wound grade on healing. Diabetes Care. 2002;25:1835–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jeffcoate WJ, Chipchase SY, Ince P, Game FL. Assessing the outcome of the management of diabetic foot ulcers using ulcer-related and person-related measures. Diabetes Care. 2006;29:1784–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Prompers L, Huijberts M, Apelqvist J, et al. Optimal organization of health care in diabetic foot disease: introduction to the eurodiale study. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2007;6:11–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Faglia E, Mantero M, Caminiti M, et al. Extensive use of peripheral angioplasty, particularly infrapopliteal, in the treatment of ischaemic diabetic foot ulcers: clinical results of a multicentric study of 221 consecutive diabetic subjects. J Int Med. 2002;252:225–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. • Krishnan S, Nash F, Baker N, Rayman G. Reduction in diabetic amputations over 11 years in a defined UK population: benefits of multidisciplinary team work and continuous prospective audit. Diabetes Care. 2008;31:99–101. Results showed a significant reduction in total and major amputation rates over an 11-year period following improvements in foot care services including multidisciplinary team work.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Habacher W, Rakovac I, Gorzer E, et al. A model to analyse costs and benefit of intensified diabetic foot care in Austria. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007;13:906–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Apelqvist J, Ragnarson-Tennvall G, Persson U, Larsson J. Diabetic foot ulcers in a multidisciplinary setting. An economic analysis of primary healing and healing with amputation. J Intern Med. 1994;235:463–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Ragnarson-Tennvall G, Apelqvist J, Eneroth M. The inpatient care of patients with diabetes mellitus and foot ulcers. A validation study of the correspondence between medical records and the Swedish Inpatient Registry with the consequences for cost estimations. J Intern Med. 2000;248:397–405.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Girod I, Valensi P, Laforet C, et al. An economic evaluation of the cost of diabetic foot ulcers: results of a retrospective study on 239 patients. Diab Metab. 2003;29:269–77.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Smith D, Cullen MJ, Nolan JJ. The cost of managing diabetic foot ulceration in an Irish hospital. Ir J Med Sci. 2004;173:89–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Davis WA, Norman PE, Bruce DG, Davis TM. Predictors, consequences and costs of diabetes-related lower extremity amputation complicating type 2 diabetes: the Fremantle Diabetes Study. Diabetologia. 2006;49:2634–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Prompers L, Huijberts M, Apelqvist J, et al. High prevalence of ischaemia, infection and serious comorbidity in patients with diabetic foot disease in Europe. Baseline results from the Eurodiale study. Diabetologia. 2007;50:18–25.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Prompers L, Huijberts M, Apelqvist J, et al. Delivery of care to diabetic patients with foot ulcers in daily practice: results of the Eurodiale Study, a prospective cohort study. Diabet Med. 2008;25:700–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Prompers L, Huijberts M, Schaper N, et al. Resource utilisation and costs associated with the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Prospective data from the Eurodiale Study. Diabetologia. 2008;51:1826–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. • Prompers L, Schaper N, Apelqvist J, et al. Prediction of outcome in individuals with diabetic foot ulcers: focus on the differences between individuals with and without peripheral arterial disease. The EURODIALE study. Diabetologia. 2008;51:747–55. The study showed that predictors of healing were different between patients with and without PAD, suggesting that diabetic foot ulcers with or without concomitant PAD should be defined as two separate entities.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. van Battum P, Schaper N, Prompers L, et al. Minor amputation in diabetic foot disease; Friend or foe? Diabet Med. 2011;28:199–205.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Boulton AJ, Gries FA, Jervell JA. Guidelines for the diagnosis and outpatient management of diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Diabet Med. 1998;15:508–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Schaper NC. Diabetic foot ulcer classification system for research purposes: a progress report criteria for including patients in research studies. Diab Metab Res Rev. 2004;20:S90–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Murabito JM, D’Agostino RB, Silbershatz H, Wilson WF. Intermittent claudication: a risk profile from the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 1997;96:44–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. American Diabetes Association. Peripheral arterial disease in people with diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:3333–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Jude EB, Oyibo SO, Chalmers N, Boulton AJM. Peripheral arterial disease in diabetic and nondiabetic patients. Diabetes Care. 2001;24:1433–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Strandness DE, Priest RE, Gibbons GE. Combined clinical and pathological study of diabetic and nondiabetic peripheral arterial disease. Diabetes. 1964;13:366–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. King TA, DePalma RG, Rhodes RS. Diabetes mellitus and atherosclerotic involvement of the profunda femoris artery. Surg Gynaecal Obstet. 1984;159:553–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Basil trial participants: Bypass versus angioplasty in severe ischaemia of the leg (BASIL).: multicentre randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 2005;366:1925–34.

  41. Faglia E, Dalla Paola L, Clerici G, et al. Peripheral angioplasty as the first-choice revascularization procedure in diabetic patients with critical limb ischemia: prospective study of 993 consecutive patients hospitalized and followed between and 2003. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 1999;2005(29):620–7.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Nabuurs-Franssen MH, Sleegers R, Huijberts MS, et al. Total contact casting of the diabetic foot in daily practice: a prospective follow-up study. Diabetes Care. 2005;28:243–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Raymakers JT, Houben AJ, van der Heyden JJ. The effect of diabetes and severe ischaemia on the penetration of ceftazidime into tissues of the limb. Diabet Med. 2001;18:229–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Stockl K, Vanderplas A, Tafesse E, Chang E. Costs of lower-extremity ulcers among patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2004;27:2129–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. • Sotto A, Richard JL, Combescure C, et al. Beneficial effects of implementing guidelines on microbiology and costs of infected diabetes foot ulcers. Diabetologia 2010;53:2249–55. A total of 405 consecutive patients with suspected diabetic foot infection were included in the study. Implementation of Guidelines of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot for obtaining specimens for culture was cost saving and provided interesting quality indicators in the global management of diabetic foot infection.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

Conflicts of interest: S. Akhtar: none; N. Schaper, J. Apelqvist and E. Jude: has received grant support from the European Commission to conduct the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tameside Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Fountain Street, Ashton-under-Lyne, Lancashire, OL6 9RW, UK

    Simeen Akhtar & Edward Jude

  2. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P. Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX, Maastricht, Netherlands

    Nicolaas Schaper

  3. Department of Endocrinology, Malmo University Hospital, Malmo, Sweden, SE-205 02

    Jan Apelqvist

Authors
  1. Simeen Akhtar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicolaas Schaper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jan Apelqvist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Edward Jude
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward Jude.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Akhtar, S., Schaper, N., Apelqvist, J. et al. A Review of the Eurodiale Studies: What Lessons for Diabetic Foot Care?. Curr Diab Rep 11, 302–309 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-011-0195-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-011-0195-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation