scholarly journals Are surrogate markers for diabetic foot osteomyelitis remission reliable?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter A Crisologo ◽  
Matthew Malone ◽  
Javier La Fontaine ◽  
Orhan Oz ◽  
Kavita Bhavan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Bone Biopsy ◽  
Surrogate Marker ◽  
Surrogate Markers ◽  
Bone Culture ◽  
Soft Tissue Infections ◽  
Diabetic Foot Infections ◽  
Index Site ◽  
Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate surrogate markers commonly used in the literature for diabetic foot osteomyelitis remission after initial treatment for diabetic foot infections. Methods: Thirty-five patients with diabetic foot infections were prospectively enrolled and followed for 12 months. Osteomyelitis was determined from bone culture and histology initially and for recurrence. Chi square and Fischer's exact test were used for dichotomous variables and the student's t-test and Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables with an alpha of 0.05. Results: Twenty-four patients were diagnosed with osteomyelitis and eleven patients with soft-tissue infections. 16.7% (n=) of patients with osteomyelitis had a re-infection based on bone biopsy. The success of osteomyelitis treatment varied based on the surrogate marker used to define remission: osteomyelitis infection (16.7%), failed wound healing (8.3%), re-ulceration (20.8%), re-admission (16.7%), amputation (12.5%). There was no difference in outcomes among patients who were initially diagnosed with osteomyelitis and soft tissue infections. There were no differences in osteomyelitis re-infection (16.7% vs 45.5%, p=0.07), wounds that failed to heal (8.3% vs 9.1%, p=0.94), re-ulceration (20.8% vs 27.3%, p=0.67), re-admission for diabetic foot infections at the same site (16.7% vs 36.4%, p=0.20), amputation at the same site after discharge (12.5% vs 36.4%, p=0.10). Osteomyelitis at the index site based on bone biopsy indicated that failed therapy was 16.7%. Indirect markers demonstrated a failure rate ranging from 8.3-20.8%. Conclusions: Most osteomyelitis markers were similar to markers in soft tissue infection subjects. Commonly reported surrogate markers were not shown to be specific to identify patients that failed osteomyelitis treatment when compared with patients that had soft tissue infections. Given this, these surrogate markers are not reliable for use in practice to identify osteomyelitis treatment failure.

Antibiotic Resistance in Diabetic Foot Soft Tissue Infections: A Series From Greece

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 255-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Demetriou ◽  
Nikolaos Papanas ◽  
Periklis Panagopoulos ◽  
Maria Panopoulou ◽  
Efstratios Maltezos
Keyword(s):  
Antibiotic Resistance ◽  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Soft Tissues ◽  
Foot Ulcers ◽  
Diabetic Foot Ulcers ◽  
Soft Tissue Infections ◽  
Diabetic Foot Infections ◽  
Initial Choice ◽  
Gram Positive Cocci

Diabetic foot infections are a common and serious problem for all health systems worldwide. The aim of this study was to examine the resistance to antibiotics of microorganisms isolated from infected soft tissues of diabetic foot ulcers, using tissue cultures. We included 113 consecutive patients (70 men, 43 women) with a mean age of 66.4 ± 11.2 years and a mean diabetes duration of 14.4 ± 7.6 years presenting with diabetic foot soft tissue infections. Generally, no high antibiotic resistance was observed. Piperacillin-tazobactam exhibited the lowest resistance in Pseudomonas, as well as in the other Gram-negative pathogens. In methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates, there was no resistance to anti-Staphylococcus agents. Of note, clindamycin, erythromycin, and amoxycillin/clavulanic acid exhibited high resistance in Gram-positive cocci. These results suggest that antibiotic resistance in infected diabetic foot ulcers in our area is not high and they are anticipated to prove potentially useful in the initial choice of antibiotic regimen.

scholarly journals Time-to-Report of the Bone Culture and Microbiologic Adequacy of Empiric Antibiotics in Patient’s with Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S94-S95
Author(s):  
Hyun Kyung Kim ◽  
Olga Vasylyeva
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Bone Biopsy ◽  
Anaerobic Bacteria ◽  
Accurate Method ◽  
Bone Culture ◽  
Culture Result ◽  
Gram Positive ◽  
Diabetic Foot Infection ◽  
Superficial Wound ◽  
Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis

Abstract Background Bone cultures in diabetic foot infection is the most accurate method to identify causative pathogen, while there is only 30% concordance between superficial wound swab and bone biopsy cultures. Diabetic foot infection is commonly polymicrobial, therefore report on the bone biopsy culture may come with several updates before it is finalized. Our study is aimed to describe how often additional pathogens were identified after patients’ discharge on antibiotics therapy for diabetic foot osteomyelitis, and evaluate microbiological appropriateness of antibiotic regimen upon discharge based on the final result of the bone culture. Methods Medical records of the patients 18 years old or older, who had inpatient bone biopsy, deep tissue debridement or amputation for diabetic foot infection, were reviewed from January 2014 through Dec 2015 in Rochester Regional Health System. Antibiotic regimens for the patients discharged before final culture result were evaluated for microbiological appropriateness by two reviewers trained in infectious diseases. Results In total, 198 procedures were screened, 158 procedures met inclusion criteria, out of which 74 patients with 80 procedures (51%) were discharged before the final culture result was available. Average time from procedure to the final culture report was 6 days, and from discharge to the final culture was 3.7 days. In most of the cases (70%, 56 out of 80) the patients were discharged on empiric regimen discordant with final culture result. Predominant organisms were Gram-positive bacteria 74%, with Gram negatives 24%, and yeast 2%. Most infections were polymicrobial (81%), mixed with anaerobic bacteria in 37%. The most frequent isolates were Staphylococcus aureus (15%), Corynebacterium (14%), anaerobic Gram-positive cocci (12%), and Staphylococcus epidermidis (8%). All negative Gram stains (31%, 25 out of 80) had positive growth on culture. Conclusion Half of the patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis, who underwent bone biopsy, were discharged before final culture results were available. Most of them were discharged on empiric regimen discordant with final culture. This data suggests that careful outpatient follow-up on the final culture would likely result in modification of antibiotics therapy to target newly reported pathogen. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Pathogens Isolated From Deep Soft Tissue and Bone in Patients With Diabetic Foot Infections

2008 ◽  
Vol 98 (4) ◽  
pp. 290-295 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Bulent Ertugrul ◽  
Selcuk Baktiroglu ◽  
Serpil Salman ◽  
Seher Unal ◽  
Murat Aksoy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Bone Culture ◽  
Tissue Cultures ◽  
Deep Soft Tissue ◽  
Diabetic Foot Infections ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Aseptic Conditions ◽  
Tissue Specimens ◽  
Culture Positive

Background: We sought to determine the similarity of pathogens isolated from soft tissue and bone in patients with diabetic foot infections. It is widely believed that soft-tissue cultures are adequate in the determination of causative bacteria in patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis. The culture results of specimens taken concurrently from soft-tissue and bone infections show that the former does not predict the latter with sufficient reliability. We sought to determine the similarity of pathogens isolated from soft tissue and bone in patients with diabetic foot infections. Methods: Forty-five patients with diabetic foot infections were enrolled in the study. Patients had to have clinically suspected foot lesions of grade 3 or higher on the Wagner classification system. In patients with clinically suspected osteomyelitis, magnetic resonance imaging, scintigraphy, or histopathologic examination were performed. Bone and deep soft tissue specimens were obtained from all patients by open surgical procedures under aseptic conditions during debridement or amputation. The specimens were compared only with the other specimens taken from the same patients. Results: The results of bone and soft-tissue cultures were identical in 49% (n = 22) of cases. In 11% (n = 5) of cases there were no common pathogens. In 29% (n = 13) of cases there were more pathogens in the soft-tissue specimens; these microorganisms included microbes isolated from bone cultures. In four patients (9%) with culture-positive soft-tissue specimens, bone culture specimens remained sterile. In one patient (2%) with culture-positive bone specimen, soft-tissue specimen remained sterile. Conclusion: Culture specimens should be obtained from both the bone and the overlying deep soft tissue in patients with suspected osteomyelitis whose clinical conditions are suitable. The decision to administer antibiotic therapy should depend on these results. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 98(4): 290–295, 2008)

scholarly journals A Proposed New Classification of Skin and Soft Tissue Infections Modeled on the Subset of Diabetic Foot Infection

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin A. Lipsky ◽  
Michael H. Silverman ◽  
Warren S. Joseph
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Classification Scheme ◽  
Regulatory Agencies ◽  
Wound Infections ◽  
Soft Tissue Infections ◽  
New Classification ◽  
Diabetic Foot Infections ◽  
The Us

Abstract Schemes for classifying skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) pose limitations for clinicians and regulatory agencies. Diabetic foot infections (DFIs) are a subset of SSTIs. We developed and are proposing a classification to harmonize current schemes for SSTIs and DFIs. Existing schemes for classifying SSTIs are limited in both their usefulness to clinicians and to regulatory agencies. The guidelines on SSTI from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration do not adequately address many types of wound infections. However, guidelines developed by the IDSA for DFIs provide a classification scheme that has been validated and widely used. Diabetic foot infections are similar to SSTIs in pathophysiology, microbiology, and treatment and can be seen as a subset of SSTI. Thus, based on the documents noted above, and our review of the literature, we have developed a proposed classification scheme for SSTI that harmonizes well with the DFI classification. We believe this new scheme will assist clinicians in classifying most wound infections and potentially aid regulatory agencies in testing and approving new antimicrobials for these infections.

scholarly journals Diagnosing Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: Narrative Review and a Suggested 2-Step Score-Based Diagnostic Pathway for Clinicians

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anurag Markanday
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
English Language ◽  
Bone Biopsy ◽  
Clinical Signs ◽  
Initial Assessment ◽  
Medline Search ◽  
Diagnostic Pathway ◽  
Diabetic Foot Infections ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis

Abstract The diabetic foot infection remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in many patients and remains a challenging diagnosis for most clinicians. Diagnosis is largely based on clinical signs supplemented by various imaging tests. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is not readily available to many clinicians, and bone biopsy, which is the accepted criterion standard for diagnosis, is rarely performed routinely. This evidence-based review and the proposed diagnostic scoring pathway substratifies the current International Working Group on the Diabetes Foot guidelines for diagnosing diabetic foot osteomyelitis into a convenient 2-step diagnostic pathway for clinicians. This proposed diagnostic approach will need further validation prospectively, but it can serve as a useful diagnostic tool during the initial assessment and management of diabetic foot infections. A MEDLINE search of English-language articles on diabetic foot osteomyelitis published between 1986 and March 2014 was conducted. Additional articles were also identified through a search of references from the retrieved articles, published guidelines, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

Corynebacterium Striatum: A Concerning Pathogen of Osteomyelitis in the Diabetic Patient

2016 ◽  
Vol 106 (sp1) ◽  
pp. 9-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sneha A. Patel ◽  
Jackeline Iacovella ◽  
Rhonda S. Cornell
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Bone Culture ◽  
Diabetic Foot Infections ◽  
Corynebacterium Striatum ◽  
Potential Pathogen ◽  
Type Ii Diabetics ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Extended Course ◽  
Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis ◽  
Bone Cultures

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Corynebacterium striatum (C. striatum) is known to colonize the skin and mucous membranes of most normal human hosts. While it is frequently isolated in clinical laboratories, the clinical significance of C. striatum is often unknown with respect to diabetic foot infections with osteomyelitis. There have been very few studies published on this topic, and even fewer that report on treatment courses. To our knowledge, there has been no study published reporting diabetic foot osteomyelitis with isolation of C. striatum from bone culture. METHODS: Four patients were known to have been treated at our facility for C. striatum diabetic foot osteomyelitis. The medical records for each patient were thoroughly reviewed with close attention directed towards the past medical history, wound duration, wound and bone cultures, antimicrobial therapy and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Bone cultures of all 4 patients were notable for C. striatum. Diphtheroids were also noted on wound cultures for 3 patients which were not speciated. All bone cultures were obtained during surgical treatment of the diabetic foot infection. All patients were type II diabetics but varied with respect to age and gender. All patients were treated with an extended course of antibiotics and/or surgical resection of osteomyelitis. Patients were followed until complete wound closure. CONCLUSIONS: We report four cases of diabetic foot osteomyelitis in which C. striatum was noted and treated as a pathogen. Diphtheroids are often overlooked as a potential pathogen in diabetic foot infections and rarely treated as such. However, our findings suggest that clinicians should consider C. striatum as a possible cause of osteomyelitis, especially when patients fail to completely heal wounds in a timely manner that have previously and repeatedly displayed Diphtheroids from cultures.

Feasibility of Percutaneous Bone Biopsy as Part of the Management of Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis in a 100% Neuropathic, Grade 3 IDSA/IWGDF Population on an Outpatient Basis

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 382-387
Author(s):  
Olga Anna Kosmopoulou ◽  
Isabelle J. Dumont
Keyword(s):  
Antibiotic Therapy ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Bone Biopsy ◽  
Ambulatory Setting ◽  
Outpatient Basis ◽  
Bone Culture ◽  
Causative Microorganism ◽  
Patients With Diabetes ◽  
Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis

The present study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of percutaneous bone biopsy in an ambulatory setting as part of the management of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) on an outpatient basis. DFO may complicate some cases of apparently nonsevere foot infections in patients with diabetes and greatly increase the risk of a lower extremity amputation. It has been suggested that bone culture–based antibiotic therapy is a predictive factor of success in patients with diabetes treated nonsurgically for osteomyelitis of the foot. It is recommended to identify the causative microorganism(s) by the means of either a surgical or percutaneous bone biopsy taken appropriately to select the proper antibiotic therapy. Percutaneous bone biopsy in patients not requiring surgery is, however, not performed in everyday practice as it should be according to the current recommendations. In the present retrospective study, we report a series of 23 consecutive patients with a suspicion of DFO in whom 28 bone samples were collected by percutaneous biopsy at the bedside in an outpatient setting. The percentage of positive cultures was in accordance with that reported in the literature. The mean number of isolates per specimen was 1.04. After a mean 12-month follow-up, the remission was almost of 78%. No adverse event related to the bone biopsy was noted. After a 1-year follow-up, no recurrence was recorded among the patients in remission. The results of the present study suggest that bedside percutaneous bone biopsy performed in the ambulatory setting is a valuable and safe tool in the management of DFO on an outpatient basis.

scholarly journals Percutaneous Bone Biopsy for Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcos C Schechter ◽  
Mohammed K Ali ◽  
Benjamin B Risk ◽  
Adam D Singer ◽  
Gabriel Santamarina ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Bone Biopsy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Positive Culture ◽  
High Yield ◽  
Analysis Model ◽  
Antibiotic Management ◽  
Culture Positive ◽  
Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis

Abstract Background Diabetes is the leading cause of lower extremity nontraumatic amputation globally, and diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) is usually the terminal event before limb loss. Although guidelines recommend percutaneous bone biopsy (PBB) for microbiological diagnosis of DFO in several common scenarios, it is unclear how frequently PBBs yield positive cultures and whether they cause harm or improve outcomes. Methods We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Trials databases for articles in any language published up to December 31, 2019, reporting the frequency of culture-positive PBBs. We calculated the pooled proportion of culture-positive PBBs using a random-effects meta-analysis model and reported on PBB-related adverse events, DFO outcomes, and antibiotic adjustment based on PBB culture results where available. Results Among 861 articles, 11 studies met inclusion criteria and included 780 patients with 837 PBBs. Mean age ranged between 56.6 and 71.0 years old. The proportion of males ranged from 62% to 86%. All studies were longitudinal observational cohorts, and 10 were from Europe. The range of culture-positive PBBs was 56%–99%, and the pooled proportion of PBBs with a positive culture was 84% (95% confidence interval, 73%–91%). There was heterogeneity between studies and no consistency in definitions used to define adverse events. Impact of PBB on DFO outcomes or antibiotic management were seldom reported. Conclusions This meta-analysis suggests PBBs have a high yield of culture-positive results. However, this is an understudied topic, especially in low- and middle-income countries, and the current literature provides very limited data regarding procedure safety and impact on clinical outcomes or antibiotic management.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document