OBJECTIVE—To separately evaluate peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD) and foot ulcer and amputation history in a diabetic foot risk classification to predict foot complications.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—We evaluated 1,666 diabetic patients for 27.2 ± 4.2 months. Patients underwent a detailed foot assessment and were followed at regular intervals. We used a modified version of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot's (IWGDF's) risk classification to assess complications during the follow-up period.

RESULTS—There were more ulcerations, infections, amputations, and hospitalizations as risk group increased (χ2 for trend P < 0.001). When risk category 2 (neuropathy and deformity and/or PAOD) was stratified by PAOD, there were more complications in PAOD patients (P < 0.01). When risk group 3 patients (ulceration or amputation history) were separately stratified, there were more complications in subjects with previous amputation (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS—We propose a new risk classification that predicts future foot complications better than that currently used by the IWGDF.

Several risk classification schemes have been developed to facilitate diabetic foot assessment and to prioritize high-risk patients for prevention services (16). The risk assessment instrument developed by the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has been shown to predict diabetic foot complications (1). However, it may undervalue the impact of peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD) and history of amputation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of these variables in risk assessment within the context of a global risk evaluation instrument to predict lower-extremity complications.

We evaluated 1,666 consecutive diabetic patients enrolled in a managed care–based diabetes disease management program for an average of 27.2 ± 4.2 months. At enrollment, patients underwent a standardized general medical examination and detailed foot assessment (7,8). The screening process involved a review of the patient's past medical history and a lower-extremity physical examination. A staff podiatrist examined each patient to identify lower-extremity complications and risk factors, such as history of lower-extremity ulcerations and amputation, peripheral sensory neuropathy, peripheral vascular disease, foot deformities, limited joint mobility, and abnormal foot pressures using previously published methods (5,911).

Neuropathy was evaluated with a 10-g Semmes-Weinstein monofilament (Touch-Test Sensory Evaluator; North Coast Medical, Morgan Hill, CA) and vibration perception threshold tester (Salix Medical, San Antonio, TX) (12). PAOD was defined as a nonpalpable dorsalis pedis or posterior tibial arterial pulse and ankle brachial index in either foot <0.80. We defined deformity as any contracture that could not be fully corrected manually, such as hallux valgus, hammer toes or claw toes, hallux rigidus (dorsiflexion of the first metatarsophalangeal joint <50°), and ankle equinus (dorsiflexion <0°). Foot ulcers were defined as full- thickness wounds involving the foot or ankle. Infection was defined by criteria consistent with the International Working Group and Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines (13).

Statistical analysis

For analysis for this report, we modified the IWGDF risk classification. Risk group 2 was divided into subgroups hypothesized to provide a more refined explanation of increasing risk. In this modified risk classification, risk group 2A included subjects with sensory neuropathy and foot deformity, and 2B included subjects with PAOD. Risk group 3 was subdivided into subjects with a history of ulceration (3A) and a history of amputation (3B). In an earlier study the two groups were suggested to have different risk profiles (1).

Counts for ulcers, infections, amputations, and hospitalizations were broken down by six risk groups based on modification of the IWGDF risk classification (Table 1). The risk groups are a type of qualitative ranking or ordering of risk. We then compared the proportion of outcomes for each risk group using a procedure described by Bartholomew (14). Tests for all outcomes (ulcers, infections, amputations, and hospitalizations) were highly significant (P < 0.005) for the hypothesis that the proportion of patients in increasing risk groups were qualitatively ordered from smallest to largest proportions in the groups. Odds ratios (ORs) for risk groups 1, 2A, 2B, 3A, and 3B were calculated compared with risk group 0, and 95% CIs were calculated for each OR using the method developed by Wolf as described by Schlesselman (15).

There was a significant trend for more ulcerations, infections, amputations, and hospitalizations as risk group increased (χ2 for trend P < 0.001). When the original IWGDF risk category 2 was split into modified risk group 2A (neuropathy and deformity) and modified risk group 2B (peripheral vascular disease), there were more foot complications in subjects with PAOD (P < 0.01). In addition, when we stratified patients with a previous ulcer or a previous amputation, there were significantly more infections, amputations, and hospitalizations among patients with a previous amputation (P < 0.01). There was no difference in the frequency of ulcers, infections, or hospitalizations in IWGDF risk category 1 (neuropathy, no deformity, no PAOD) versus 2A (neuropathy with deformity, no PAOD) (P > 0.05). ORs comparing IWGDF risk group 0 with risk groups 1 and 2A were as follows: ulcer, OR 1.7 (95% CI 1.03–2.9); infection, 2.2 (1.1–4.2); amputation, 8.0 (1.1–251.9); and hospitalization, 11.7 (1.9–359.5).

The results of this study suggest that a modified IWGDF diabetic foot classification is more effective at predicting diabetic foot complications than the original risk scheme. Based on our results modifying the IWGDF classification, we proposed a five-tiered risk classification identified in Table 1 as the Texas Foot Risk Classification. The original IWGDF classification grouped neuropathy without PAOD and without deformity (Texas risk group 1) and subjects with PAOD and/or peripheral neuropathy with foot deformity together (Texas risk group 2). When we compared neuropathy and deformity and PAOD separately, there were significantly more ulcers, infections, amputations, and hospitalizations in subjects with PAOD. There was no difference in outcomes in subjects with neuropathy compared with those with neuropathy and foot and ankle deformity. Therefore, we combined patients with neuropathy and without PAOD into a single risk group (Texas risk group 1) (Table 1). We did not include deformity as a decisive factor in risk group assignment. In addition, we provided separate risk tiers for PAOD (Texas risk group 2), history of foot ulcer (Texas risk group 3), and history of amputation (Texas risk group 4).

The 80/20 effect

The results are a classic example of the Pareto effect (sometime called the 80/20 effect in economics) (1619). According to the Pareto Principle, when multiple factors contribute to a common outcome, relatively few factors account for the majority of the effect (1719). Ordering of the most important factors helps identify the “most important few”—the factors that warrant the most attention. In this study, subjects in Texas risk groups 2, 3, and 4 accounted for <20% of the study population but 70% of ulcers and 90% of amputations and hospitalizations. Understanding this concept should help health care providers concentrate on risk groups that have the greatest morbidity and health care costs. Prevention in these populations may provide the most health care improvements for society for the lowest costs. This is a departure from simply focusing on a specific risk factor, such as neuropathy.

1.
Peters EJ, Lavery LA: Effectiveness of the diabetic foot risk classification system of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot.
Diabetes Care
24
:
1442
–1447,
2001
2.
Apelqvist J, Bakker K, Van Houtum WH, Nabuurs-Fransen MH, Schaper NC: International consensus on the diabetic foot.
The International Consensus on the Diabetic Foot by the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot.
Amsterdam, the Netherlands, International Diabetes Federation,
1999
, p.
67
3.
Mayfield JA, Reiber GE, Nelson RG, Greene T: A foot risk classification system to predict diabetic amputation in Pima Indians.
Diabetes Care
19
:
704
–709,
1996
4.
Rith-Najarian SJ, Stolusky T, Gohdes DM: Identifying diabetic patients at high risk for lower-extremity amputation in a primary health care setting: a prospective evaluation of simple screening criteria.
Diabetes Care
15
:
1386
–1389,
1992
5.
Lavery LA, Armstrong DG, Vela SA, Quebedeaux TL, Fleischli JG: Practical criteria for screening patients at high risk for diabetic foot ulceration.
Arch Intern Med
26
:
157
–162,
1998
6.
Birke JS, DA.
Physical Therapy of the Foot and Ankle: Insensitive Foot.
New York, Churchill Livingstone,
1988
7.
Lavery LA, Armstrong DG, Wunderlich RP, Mohler MJ, Wendel CS, Lipsky BA: Risk factors for foot infections in individuals with diabetes.
Diabetes Care
29
:
1288
–1293,
2006
8.
Lavery LA, Armstrong DG, Wunderlich RP, Tredwell J, Boulton AJ: Diabetic foot syndrome: evaluating the prevalence and incidence of foot pathology in Mexican Americans and non-Hispanic whites from a diabetes disease management cohort.
Diabetes Care
26
:
1435
–1438,
2003
9.
Hastings MK, Mueller MJ, Sinacore DR, Salsich GB, Engsberg JR, Johnson JE: Effects of a tendo-Achilles lengthening procedure on muscle function and gait characteristics in a patient with diabetes mellitus.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther
30
:
85
–90,
2000
10.
Keenan AM, Bach TM: Clinicians’ assessment of the hindfoot: a study of reliability.
Foot Ankle Int
27
:
451
–460,
2006
11.
Murray KJ: Hypermobility disorders in children and adolescents.
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol
20
:
329
–351,
2006
12.
Armstrong DG, Hussain SK, Middleton J, Peters EJ, Wunderlich RP, Lavery LA: Vibration perception threshold: are multiple sites of testing superior to single site testing on diabetic foot examination?
Ostomy Wound Manage
44
:
70
–74, 76, 1998
13.
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
15
:
562
–565,
2007
14.
Fleiss J:
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions.
2nd ed. New York, John Wiley & Sons,
1981
15.
Schlesselman JJ:
Case Control Studies: Design, Conduct, Analysis.
New York, Oxford University Press,
1982
16.
Juran JG, Gryna FM.
Juran's Quality Handbook.
5th ed. New York, McGraw-Hill,
2000
17.
Erridge P: The Pareto principle.
Br Dent J
7
:
419
,
2006
18.
Gibbard A: Health care and the prospective Pareto principle.
Ethics
94
:
261
–282,
1984
19.
Gibbard A: The prospective Pareto principle and equity of access to health care.
Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc
60
:
399
–428,
1982
20.
Lavery LA, Wunderlich RP, Tredwell JL: Disease management for the diabetic foot: effectiveness of a diabetic foot prevention program to reduce amputations and hospitalizations.
Diabetes Res Clin Pract
70
:
31
–37,
2005

Published ahead of print at http://care.diabetesjournals.org on 12 October 2007. DOI: 10.2337/dc07-1302.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked “advertisement” in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.