2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America Clinical Practice Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Diabetic Foot Infectionsa

2013 ◽  
Vol 103 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin A. Lipsky ◽  
Anthony R. Berendt ◽  
Paul B. Cornia ◽  
James C. Pile ◽  
Edgar J. G. Peters ◽  
...  

Foot infections are a common and serious problem in persons with diabetes. Diabetic foot infections (DFIs) typically begin in a wound, most often a neuropathic ulceration. While all wounds are colonized with microorganisms, the presence of infection is defined by ≥2 classic findings of inflammation or purulence. Infections are then classified into mild (superficial and limited in size and depth), moderate (deeper or more extensive), or severe (accompanied by systemic signs or metabolic perturbations). This classification system, along with a vascular assessment, helps determine which patients should be hospitalized, which may require special imaging procedures or surgical interventions, and which will require amputation. Most DFIs are polymicrobial, with aerobic gram-positive cocci (GPC), and especially staphylococci, the most common causative organisms. Aerobic gram-negative bacilli are frequently copathogens in infections that are chronic or follow antibiotic treatment, and obligate anaerobes may be copathogens in ischemic or necrotic wounds. Wounds without evidence of soft tissue or bone infection do not require antibiotic therapy. For infected wounds, obtain a post-debridement specimen (preferably of tissue) for aerobic and anaerobic culture. Empiric antibiotic therapy can be narrowly targeted at GPC in many acutely infected patients, but those at risk for infection with antibiotic-resistant organisms or with chronic, previously treated, or severe infections usually require broader spectrum regimens. Imaging is helpful in most DFIs; plain radiographs may be sufficient, but magnetic resonance imaging is far more sensitive and specific. Osteomyelitis occurs in many diabetic patients with a foot wound and can be difficult to diagnose (optimally defined by bone culture and histology) and treat (often requiring surgical debridement or resection, and/or prolonged antibiotic therapy). Most DFIs require some surgical intervention, ranging from minor (debridement) to major (resection, amputation). Wounds must also be properly dressed and off-loaded of pressure, and patients need regular follow-up. An ischemic foot may require revascularization, and some nonresponding patients may benefit from selected adjunctive measures. Employing multidisciplinary foot teams improves outcomes. Clinicians and healthcare organizations should attempt to monitor, and thereby improve, their outcomes and processes in caring for DFIs.

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 2473011418S0041
Author(s):  
Maria Gala Santini Araujo ◽  
Pablo Sotelano ◽  
Nelly Carrasco ◽  
Ana Parise ◽  
Daniel Villena

Category: Diabetes Introduction/Purpose: Neuropathy and Peripheral arterial disease are the main causes of diabetic foot ulcers. Toes are the most frequent location. Osteomyelitis diagnosis of foot ulcers is still controversial, mainly in ulcers without bone exposure. Although MRI has 90% sensitivity and 85% specificity for osteomyelitis diagnosis, it is not usually used for early detection of bone changes, due to lack of availability and high cost. Bone biopsy puncture is considered the gold standard methodology together with microbiological and histological examinations, but it is not always available in all practices. The purpose of this study was to describe the diagnosis in forefoot ulcers found in diabetic patients using MRI and bone biopsy puncture. Methods: This is a retrospective study, a case series. Clinical records of patients with injuries limited to toes between January 2013 and December 2015 were analyzed. The inclusion criteria were: patients with Diabetes Mellitus (DM) diagnosis and with a grade 1 or 2 digital ulcer according to Wagner’s classification for at least 3 weeks, with visible bone edema in the magnetic resonance (MRI) and those with a bone biopsy performed, and with a minimum follow–up of a year. Patients with diabetic foot ulcers were evaluated by an interdisciplinary team. Laboratory standards were evaluated preoperative and during antibiotic therapy. The surgical bone biopsy was performed by a foot and ankle surgeon with experience in Diabetic foot pathologies. Microbiological and histological study was analyzed. We also recorded the demographic data and identified the patients who had received previous empiric antibiotic therapy. Statistical analysis was performed. Results: Thirty patients out of 93 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria between January 2013 and December 2015. Eleven patients had grade 1 ulcers and 19 grade 2. Twenty-two patients (73.3%) got bone biopsies with positive cultures and 14 (63,3%) had a positive pathological anatomy. Eight patients got negative cultures and pathology. Six patients that did not received empiric antibiotic therapy and 19 patients out of 24 who had received empiric antibiotics had positive cultures. Mean healing time for patients who did not had antibiotics was 4 weeks (3-12) and for the group who received empiric antibiotics was 6 weeks (4-10/) Only 4 patients out of 19 patients with Wagner II ulcers had the toe amputated. Conclusion: A precise diagnosis of the germ was obtained in 73.3% of the patients and a specific antibiotic treatment was completed. Although empiric antibiotic therapy 19 out of 24 patients had positive bone cultures and healing time was longer. Amputation index was 13%, all of them were grade 2 ulcers. There were no major amputations. We consider that in these kind of ulcers that had more than 3 weeks without healing and had no radiographic changes, MRI can show bone edema. Surgical bone biopsy should be done to begin specific antibiotic therapy and improve healing time.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S778-S778
Author(s):  
Jessica L Seadler ◽  
Natalie Tucker ◽  
Beth Cady ◽  
Praveen Mullangi

Abstract Background Diabetic foot infections (DFI) are a potentially devastating complication for patients with diabetes. When treating these patients, there is a need for selection of highly effective antibiotics coupled with a need to avoid excessive use of broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents that could lead to adverse patient outcomes. At this institution, it has been observed that there is a lack of compliance with consensus guideline recommendations for the choice of empiric antibiotic therapy for DFI, leading to overuse of broad-spectrum antibiotics. Methods A retrospective chart review was performed for hospitalized patients over 18 years of age that received antibiotics for DFI during the period of August 1, 2018 to July 31, 2019. Patients were excluded if they were continuing outpatient antibiotics for an existing DFI, were being treated with antibiotics for a concurrent infection, or were pregnant. The primary objective was the rate of guideline-compliant empiric antibiotic regimens as broken down by infection severity. Secondary objectives included the duration of antibiotic therapy per patient, and rates of empiric methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and P. aeruginosa coverage. Results A total of 114 patients were included in the analysis. A majority of patients had an infection of moderate severity (65.8%), followed by 19.3% with severe infections, and 14.9% with mild infections. In the total population, only 26.3% of patients received empiric antibiotic regimens that were guideline-compliant. A large percentage of patients received empiric anti-MRSA antibiotics (95.6%) and empiric anti-pseudomonal agents (89.5%). Use of these broad-spectrum agents did not differ by infection severity. Ninety-nine (86.8%) patients had a site culture collected. S. aureus was the most commonly isolated organism and there was a low rate of P. aeruginosa (10.1%). Conclusion There is room for improvement in the management of DFI at this institution. A specific area that has been identified is the overuse of empiric anti-pseudomonal agents in patients without risk factors for P. aeruginosa. The results of this study will be evaluated alongside consensus guidelines and used to create institution-specific treatment guidance that providers can employ to optimize the management of DFI. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures


Author(s):  
Irmina Maria Michalek ◽  
Kryspin Mitura ◽  
Agnieszka Krechowska ◽  
Florentino Luciano Caetano dos Santos

In current clinical practice, in case of symptoms-based suspicion of diabetic foot infection, immediate empiric antibiotic therapy is recommended. Prevailing guidelines do not provide region-specific therapy schemes. To validate existing recommendations, there is an urgent need for a report on diabetic foot infection microbiota patterns in Central Europe. This study aimed to describe diabetic foot infections microbiota and its antibiotic susceptibility in Poland. We conducted a single-center descriptive study at the General Surgery Department, Siedlce Hospital, Poland. Data for all patients diagnosed with diabetic foot infection between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2016, and corresponding antimicrobial susceptibility tests were extracted. A total of 54 patients were included in the study, with a total of 102 microbiological samples. Among 81 positive samples, 77.1% of the isolated bacteria were Gram-negative. A total of 93.4% of the isolates were facultatively anaerobic bacteria. No obligatory anaerobic bacteria and no yeasts were isolated. Facultatively anaerobic, Gram-negative bacteria, mainly Proteus spp and Escherichia coli, were the most common organisms cultured in diabetic foot infections. This study suggests that the currently implemented treatment recommendations might not be adequate in Poland.


1992 ◽  
Vol 82 (7) ◽  
pp. 361-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
WS Joseph

The infected diabetic lower extremity has enjoyed a surge in popularity in the medical literature. There have been numerous papers outlining classification systems for ulcer depth, surgical approaches, and microbiology. Discussions on antibiotic use have usually been directed toward therapy of the "diabetic foot infections" as a group, without regard to differences in severity and location of these infections. These infections can vary from the most superficial of processes to a severe life- and limb-threatening sepsis. The author presents a review of the processes involved in the diabetic lower extremity infection and suggests a classification system for selection of empiric antibiotic therapy based on the severity of the infection.


2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S328-S328
Author(s):  
Pushpalatha Bangalore Lingegowda ◽  
Say-Tat Ooi ◽  
Jyoti Somani ◽  
Chelsea Law ◽  
Boon Kiak Yeo

Abstract Background Management of diabetic foot infections (DFI) is challenging and involves multidisciplinary teams to improve outcomes (1). Appropriate wound care of patients with DFI plays an important role in successfully curing infections and promote wound healing. In Singapore, Infectious Diseases (ID) specialists help in the management of DFI by recommending appropriate antibiotics for infected wounds while wound debridement are managed by Podiatrists (POD). When patients are hospitalized multidisciplinary teams including Vascular Surgery review patients. In the outpatient setting patients have multiple appointments including ID and Endocrinology etc. The time spent and costs incurred by patients for traveling to multiple appointments is considerable. A joint ID-POD clinic was initiated to reduce the cost and inconvenience for patients. Methods A joint weekly clinic was initiated in October’16 and the data was analyzed upto May’17. Finance was involved in deriving costs. The service costs for consultations payable by patients before and after the initiation of the joint clinic were compared. Results First 6 months experience of initiating the joint ID-POD clinic is reported. 35 unique patients had a total of 88 visits. 1/third of the patients had more than 2 visits to the joint clinic. For each visit to the joint clinic the patient paid 25% less compared with having separate clinics. The hospital lowered the service cost for the new clinic by 11%. This was done by minimizing the time involvement of the ID physician. Conclusion Joint ID-POD clinic for managing diabetic patients with foot infections revealed several advantages. Hospital outpatient visits for each patient decreased by 50% for those requiring care of both ID and POD, without compromising care. With the consolidation of care each individual patient had a cost savings of 25% for the joint consultation. This joint clinic while making it convenient for patients has revealed significant cost savings to patients especially for those requiring multiple visits. We recommend hospitals with high prevalence of Diabetes and Diabetic foot infections to consider joint ID-POD clinics to reduce hassle and increase saving for patients. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.


CHEST Journal ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 138 (4) ◽  
pp. 856A
Author(s):  
Kyle W. Bierman ◽  
Lee E. Morrow ◽  
Joshua D. Holweger ◽  
John T. Ratelle ◽  
Mark A. Malesker

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document