PEDIS grading and its role in diabetic foot ulcer management
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20192990Keywords:
Diabetes, Diabetic foot ulcer, PEDIS gradingAbstract
Background: Diabetic foot ulcer is the commonest cause of hospitalization in diabetic patients. Amputation is one of its dreaded complications, which deteriorates quality of life and increases mortality. Most of amputations are preventable and it is essential to define standard and efficient approach to treat diabetic foot ulcer in a timely manner. The first step is to define correct grade of diabetic foot ulcer and its risk of developing complications. Aim was to assess the outcome of treatment of diabetic foot ulcer with the given PEDIS score and to find the role of PEDIS score in predicting the outcome.
Methods: This is a prospective cohort study. PEDIS score was calculated after all variables were categorized for a give patient and documented. PEDIS score was recorded for each patient. Patients followed up for 6 months and outcome was categorized as healed, unhealed, amputed, or death. Study was carried out till adequate sample size was achieved.
Results: High PEDIS score in diabetic foot ulcer was associated with peripheral neuropathy. Adverse outcome like amputation and unhealed ulcer were more seen with high PEDIS score. All amputed patients were having high PEDIS score.
Conclusions: PEDIS score is more useful in clinical practice for diabetic foot ulcer grading and can be uniformly applied to compare outcome all over the world.
References
Moss SE, Klein R, Klein BE. The prevalence and incidence of lower extremity amputation in a diabetic population. Arch Intern Med. 1992;152(3):610-6.
Borssen B, Bergenheim T, Lithner F. The Epidemiology of foot lesions in diabetic patients aged 15-50 years. Diabet Med. 1990;7(5):438-44.
Palumbo PJ, Melton LJ. Peripheral vascular disease and diabetes. In: Harris MI, Hamman RF, Editors. Diabetes in America. Washington: US Government printing office; 1985: 16-21.
Pendsey S. Diabetic Foot: A Clinical Atlas. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers; 2003.
Pecoraro RE, Reiber GE, Burgess EM. Pathways to diabetic limb amputation: Basis for prevention. Diabetic Care. 1990;13:513-21.
Pendsey S, Abbas ZG. The Step-by-Step program for reducing diabetic foot problem: A model for the developing world. Curr Diab Rep. 2007;7:425-8.
Alavi A, Sibbald RG, Mayer D, Goodman L, Boutros M, Armstrong DG, et al. Diabetic foot ulcers: Part I. Pathophysiology and prevention. J Am Accad Dermatology. 2014;70:1 e1-18.
Wang AH, Xu ZR, Ji LN. Clinical characteristics and medical costs of diabetics with amputation at central urban hospitals in China. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2012;92:224-7.
Lipsky BA, Weigelt JA, Sun X, Johannes RS, Derby KG, Tabak YP. Developing and validating a risk score for lower-extremity amputation in patients hospitalized for a diabetic foot infection. Diabetes Care. 2011;34:1695-700.
Martinsmendes D, Monteirosoares M, Boyko EJ, Ribeiro M, Barata P, Lima J, et al. The independent contribution of diabetic foot ulcer on lower extremity amputation and mortality risk. J Diabetes Complicat. 2014;28:632-8.
Monteirosoares M, Boyko EJ, Ribeiro J, Ribeiro I, Dinisribeiro M. Risk stratification systems for diabetic foot ulcers: a systematic review. Diabetologia. 2011;54:1190-9.
Chuan F, Tang K, Jiang P, Zhou B, He X. Reliability and validity of the perfusion, extent, depth, infection and sensation (PEDIS) classification system and score in patients with diabetic foot ulcer. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0124739.
Treece KA, Macfarlane RM, Pound N, Game FL, Jeffcoate WJ. Validation of a system of foot ulcer classification in diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 2004;21:987-91.
Shahbazian H, Yazdanpanah L, Latifi SM. Risk assessment of patients with diabetes for foot ulcers according to risk classification consensus of International Working Group on Diabetic Foot (IWGDF). Pak J Med Sci. 2013;29:730-4.
Al-Rubeaan K, Al Derwish M, Ouizi S, Youssef AM, Subhani SN, Ibrahim HM, et al. Diabetic foot complications and their risk factors from a large retrospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):1-5.
Lavery LA, Armstrong DG, Murdoch DP, Peters EJ, Lipsky BA. Validation of the Infectious Diseases Society of America's diabetic foot infection classification system. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44:562-5.
Oyibo SO, Jude EB, Tarawneh I, Nguyen HC, Armstrong DG, Harkless LB, 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.
Oyibo SO, Jude EB, Tarawneh I, Nguyen HC, Harkless LB, Boulton AJ. A comparison of two diabetic foot ulcer classification systems: the Wagner and the University of Texas wound classification systems. Diabetes Care. 2001;24:84-8.
Armstrong DG, Lavery LA, Harkless LB. Validation of a diabetic wound classification system. The contribution of depth, infection, and ischemia to risk of amputation. Diabetes Care. 1998;21:855-9.
Younes NA, Albsoul AM. The DEPA scoring system and its correlation with the healing rate of diabetic foot ulcers. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2004;43:209-13.
Monteirosoares M, Vazcarneiro A, Sampaio S, Dinisribeiro M. Validation and comparison of currently available stratification systems for patients with diabetes by risk of foot ulcer development. Eur J Endocrinol. 2012;167:401-7.
Reynolds T. Disease prediction models aim to guide medical decision making. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135:637-40.
Lee JA, Halpern EM, Lovblom LE, Yeung E, Bril V, Perkins BA. Reliability and validity of a point-of-care surely nerve conduction device for identification of diabetic neuropathy. Plops One. 2014;9:e86515.
Bowering CK. Diabetic foot ulcers: Pathophysiology, assessment, and therapy. Can Fame Physician. 2001;47:1007-16.
Clayton W, Easy TA. A review of pathophysiology, classification and treatment of foot ulcers in diabetic patients. Clin Diabetes. 2009;27:52-8.
