Diabetic Foot Ulceration in Dialysis‐Dependent End‐Stage Kidney Disease : A Systematic Review of Epidemiology, Clinical Outcomes and Mortality Risk

Lim, J. Z. M. and Selvarajah, D. and Mitra, S. and Ng, N. S. L. and Rayman, G. and Vileikyte, L. and Game, F. L. and Boulton, A. J. M. (2026) Diabetic Foot Ulceration in Dialysis‐Dependent End‐Stage Kidney Disease : A Systematic Review of Epidemiology, Clinical Outcomes and Mortality Risk. Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews, 42 (5). ISSN 1520-7552

Text (dmrr.70189.pdf)
dmrr.70189.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (1MB)

Abstract

Background: Diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) and lower limb complications are highly prevalent in people with end‐stage kidney disease (ESKD), particularly those receiving dialysis; however, the overall burden and outcomes remain incompletely characterised. This systematic review with narrative synthesis aimed to summarise study characteristics and evidence on the epidemiology of DFU in ESKD, including incidence, prevalence, wound healing outcomes, and associations with lower‐extremity amputation (LEA) and mortality. Methods: MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from inception to 31 January 2026 for longitudinal and cross‐sectional studies, including registry data, in adults with ESKD or on dialysis. Outcomes included DFU epidemiology, wound healing, revascularisation, LEA and mortality. Results: The review included 64 observational studies. In dialysis‐dependent populations, DFU incidence is high and increases with advancing renal impairment, often preceding dialysis initiation. Evidence on whether dialysis initiation itself increases DFU risk is limited and heterogeneous, although observational cohorts suggest a temporal association with haemodialysis initiation, particularly within the first 2 years. Data comparing haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis are scarce. Wound healing outcomes were variable, with earlier recurrence observed, although multidisciplinary care improved healing, largely driven by perfusion and ulcer severity rather than renal function alone. Although based on observational and heterogeneous data, dialysis‐dependent ESKD was frequently identified as an independent predictor of LEA after adjustment for confounders, with coexisting peripheral arterial disease, a key determinant of adverse limb outcomes. Mortality risk appeared to compound following amputation, with observational data suggesting high post‐amputation mortality (approaching 50% at 2 years and 70% at 5 years), consistent with a shift towards limb loss rather than increased DFU occurrence. Interpretation is limited by study heterogeneity, observational design, limited long‐term data on healing and recurrence, and inadequate stratification by dialysis modality. Conclusions: Current evidence underscores substantial gaps in understanding the natural history and optimal management of diabetic foot disease in dialysis‐dependent ESKD. Future research should prioritise well‐designed prospective studies to delineate dialysis‐specific risk pathways, incorporate robust stratification by dialysis modality, and evaluate interventions targeting ischaemia and limb preservation. Standardisation of outcome reporting, particularly for healing durability and recurrence, will be essential to enable meaningful comparisons and guide the development of tailored multidisciplinary care models for this high‐risk population.