Background: The healing of foot wounds in patients with diabetes mellitus is frequently complicated by critical limb threatening ischemia (neuro-ischemic diabetic foot syndrome, DFS). In this situation, imminent arterial revascularization is imperative in order to avoid amputation. However, in many patients this is no longer possible (“too late”, “too sick”, “no technical option”). Besides conservative treatment or major amputation, many alternative methods supposed to decrease pain, promote wound healing, and avoid amputations are employed. We performed a narrative review in order to stress their efficiency and evidence. Methods: The literature research for the 2014 revision of the German evidenced-based S3-PAD-guidelines was extended to 2020. Results: If revascularization is impossible, there is not enough evidence for gene- and stem-cell therapy, hyperbaric oxygen, sympathectomy, spinal cord stimulation, prostanoids etc. to be able to recommend them. Risk factor management is recommended for all CLTI patients. With appropriate wound care and strict offloading, conservative treatment may be an effective alternative. Timely amputation can accelerate mobilization and improve the quality of life. Conclusions: Alternative treatments said to decrease the amputation rate by improving arterial perfusion and wound healing in case revascularization is impossible and lack both efficiency and evidence. Conservative therapy can yield acceptable results, but early amputation may be a beneficial alternative. Patients unfit for revascularization or major amputation should receive palliative wound care and pain therapy. New treatment strategies for no-option CLTI are urgently needed.

Zusammenfassung: In Deutschland leben ca. 8 Mio. Menschen mit Diabetes mellitus. Eine Spätfolge dieser Erkrankung ist das diabetische Fußsyndrom (DFS), dessen Prävalenz stark ansteigt. Es umfasst alle Veränderungen am Fuß als Folge der diabetischen Polyneuropathie sowie mikro- und makroangiopathischer (periphere arterielle Verschlusskrankheit, PAVK) Veränderungen. Jährlich entstehen ca. 250.000 neue diabetische Fußulzera. Diese werden oft zu chronischen Wunden. Trotz intensiver Bemühungen um Prävention, frühzeitige Diagnostik und stadiengerechte Wundbehandlung werden in Deutschland jährlich ca. 13.000 Majoramputationen bei Diabetikern durchgeführt. Bei konsequenter Therapie des DFS in interdisziplinären Zentren mit Ausschöpfung aller Möglichkeiten der Wundbehandlung, der Druckentlastung sowie einer arteriellen Revaskularisation kann die Majoramputationsrate um bis zu 80 % gesenkt werden. Durch eine geeignete Präventionsstrategie wäre die große Gefahr der Rezidivulzera geringer.

Background: Patients with neuroischemic diabetic foot syndrome (DFS) may need arterial revascularization, minor amputations, débridements as well as meticulous wound care. Unfortunately, postoperative outpatient care is frequently inadequate. This is especially true for Germany, where the in- and outpatient sectors are funded and managed separately, with poor communication between the two. Thus, many patients may be readmitted to the hospital following successful treatment and discharge. In an attempt to overcome these problems, we looked at whether an integrated case management (CM) system for outpatient care according to in-hospital standards might improve patients care and avoid readmissions. In addition we analyzed the length of hospital stay (LOS) as well as hospital costs. Patients and methods: In this retrospective cohort study patients with DFS, bypass surgery and foot surgery after implementation of the CM (study group; n = 376) were compared with a matched historic control group (HCG; n = 190) including the flat rate revenues (G-DRG K01B). Following a standardized assessment, integrated trans-sectoral CM care was offered to 116 patients (CMP). Results: The proportion of patients who were readmitted to hospital was reduced in CMP compared to HCG (8.8 vs. 16.4 %; p < 0.01), with consequent reduction of case consolidations (9.7 % versus 17.8 %, p < 0.001). Although initially, the mean LOS was higher in the CMP patients, the reduction in readmissions meant that this integrated CM program improved the hospital’s economic situation. Conclusions: A hospital-based integrated CM system significantly reduces the hospital readmissions in patients with neuroischemic DFS following bypass surgery, with lower hospital costs.

Background: In vascular medicine, peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and diabetic foot syndrome (DFS) are often considered synonymous with respect to the need for revascularization. In PAD patients, clinical symptoms reflect the degree of atherosclerotic disease, since peripheral innervation, including pain sensation, is not usually compromised. In DFS patients, however, symptoms of relevant foot ischemia are often absent and progression of ischemia goes unnoticed owing to diabetic polyneuropathy, the loss of nociception being the main trigger for foot ulcers. This review analyzes the fundamental differences between PAD and DFS against the background of polyneuropathy. Methods: The literature research for the 2014 revision of the German evidence-based S3-PAD-guidelines was extended to 2023. Results: Vascular examination is imperative for both, PAD and DFS. Stage-dependent revascularization is of utmost importance in PAD patients, especially those suffering from critical limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). Successful therapy of DFS goes further, including infection and metabolic control, wound management, offloading the foot and lifelong prophylaxis in the course of a multidisciplinary treatment concept. Revascularization is not needed in all cases of DFS. Conclusions: There are fundamental differences between PAD and DFS with respect to pathophysiology, the anatomical distribution of arterial occlusive processes, the clinical symptoms, the value of diagnostic tools such as the ankle-brachial index, and classification. Also, therapeutic concepts differ substantially between the two patient populations.

The conservative treatment of peripheral arterial disease (PAD), as recommended in current guidelines, encompasses measures such as lifestyle modification and risk-factor management. In addition, in patients with vasogenic intermittent claudication (IC), it is recommended that patients first be given drugs to improve perfusion and undergo supervised gait training. Revascularization is not recommended for asymptomatic persons, but it is considered mandatory for patients with critical ischemia. In this article on conservative and revascularizing treatment strategies for IC, we address the following questions: whether all treatment options are available, how effective they are, and whether the reality of treatment for IC in Germany corresponds to what is recommended in the guidelines. In 2014, the German Society for Angiology carried out a comprehensive literature search in order to prepare a new version of the S3 guideline on PAD. This literature search was updated up to 2018, with identical methods, for the present review. The benefit of lifestyle modification and risk factor treatment is supported by high-level evidence ( evidence level I, recommendation grade A ). The distance patients are able to walk without pain is increased by drug therapy as well (evidence level IIb), but the therapeutic effect is only moderate. Supervised exercise training (SET), though supported by high-level evidence (I, A), is of limited efficacy, availability, and applicability, and patient compliance with it is also limited. In patients with IC, revascularization leads to complete relief of symptoms more rapidly than gait training, and its long-term benefit is steadily improving owing to advances in medical technology. A combination of arterial revascularization and gait training yields the best results. In a clinical trial, patients with IC who underwent combined therapy increased the distance they could walk without pain by 954 m in six months, compared to 407 m in a group that underwent gait training alone. In the treatment of vasogenic IC, SET and drugs to increase perfusion are now giving way to revascularization, which is more effective. As far as can be determined, SET is not currently implemented at all in the German health care system. It would be desirable for SET to be more available and more widely used, both to sustain the benefit of revascularization over the long term and to lower the general cardiovascular risk.