Journals / Infectious diseases and clinical microbiology (Online) / 2021 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 2

Diabetic Foot Infections and Outcomes:A Single Center Study

Pages
64–69
Publication Date
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The mortality rate was 1.5%.Conclusion: Tissue culturing is an important diagnostic tool that gives etiology and susceptibility pattern of bacteria in patients with DFI.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Diabetic foot infections (DFI) is one of the most important complications of diabetes mellitus.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, we aimed to show the causative microorganisms among patients with DFI and evaluate the long term results.Materials and Methods: We included the patients over 18 years old who were followed up with DFI, with deep tissue cultures between July 26, 2015, and November 5, 2018, in our center.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The mortality rate was 1.5%.Conclusion: Tissue culturing is an important diagnostic tool that gives etiology and susceptibility pattern of bacteria in patients with DFI.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Diabetic foot infections (DFI) is one of the most important complications of diabetes mellitus. In this study, we aimed to show the causative microorganisms among patients with DFI and evaluate the long term results.Materials and Methods: We included the patients over 18 years old who were followed up with DFI, with deep tissue cultures between July 26, 2015, and November 5, 2018, in our center. Demographic data of the patients, Hba1c levels, nasal swab, tissue biopsy and antibiogram results of microorganisms, were evaluated. The outcomes were infection, amputation, and mortality.Results: In total, 397 patients followed up with DFI diagnosis in “Diabetic Foot and Chronic Wound Unit" were included. The mean age was 65.48 years, and 74.3% of the patients were male. The most common gram-negative agent was Pseudomonas aeruginosa (37.1%), and the gram-positive agent was Staphylococcus aureus (56.5%). A surgical procedure was performed in 57.2% of the cases. Finger amputation interventions were 33.5% of the interventions, 36.6% were surgical debridement, and the remaining 30% were major amputations. The mortality rate was 1.5%.Conclusion: Tissue culturing is an important diagnostic tool that gives etiology and susceptibility pattern of bacteria in patients with DFI.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKDOĞAN, Ö., YAPAR, D., BAYKAM, N., ÇELİKBAŞ, A. K., KENDİRCİ, M. (2022). Diabetic Foot Infections and Outcomes:A Single Center Study. Infectious diseases and clinical microbiology (Online), Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 2, 64–69. https://ajindex.com/articles/539084

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. 1 Lipsky BA, Berendt AR, Embil J, De Lalla F. Diagnosing and treating diabetic foot infections. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. MayJun, 2004
  2. 20 Suppl 1:S56-64. [CrossRef] 2 Pickwell K, Siersma V, Kars M, Apelqvist J, Bakker K, Edmonds M, et al. Predictors of lower-extremity amputation in patients with an infected diabetic foot ulcer. Diabetes Care. May, 2015
  3. 38(5):852-7. [CrossRef] 3 Jia L, Parker CN, Parker TJ, Kinnear EM, Derhy PH, Alvarado AM, et al. Diabetic Foot Working Group, Queensland Statewide Diabetes Clinical Network (Australia). Incidence and risk factors for developing infection in patients presenting with uninfected diabetic foot ulcers. PLoS One. May 17, 2017
  4. 12(5):e0177916. [CrossRef] 4 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). 2013
  5. 29(3):730-734. [CrossRef] 5 European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters [Internet]. EUCAST. (cited August 22, 2021). Available from: https://www.eucast.org/ast_of_bacteria/previous_versions_of_documents/ 6 Lazzarini PA, Hurn SE, Fernando ME, Jen SD, Kuys SS, Kamp MC, et al. Prevalence of foot disease and risk factors in general inpatient populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2015
  6. 5(11):e008544. [CrossRef] 7 Nikoloudi M, Eleftheriadou I, Tentolouris A, Kosta OA, Tentolouris N. Diabetic Foot Infections: Update on Management. Curr Infect Dis Rep. Aug 1, 2018
  7. 20(10):40. [CrossRef] 8 Smith K, Collier A, Townsend EM, O’Donnell LE, Bal AM, Butcher J, et al. One step closer to understanding the role of bacteria in diabetic foot ulcers: characterising the microbiome of ulcers. BMC Microbiol. Mar 22, 2016
  8. [CrossRef] 9 Van Asten SA, La Fontaine J, Peters EJ, Bhavan K, Kim PJ, Lavery LA. The microbiome of diabetic foot osteomyelitis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. Feb, 2016
  9. 35(2):293-8. [CrossRef] 10 Lavery LA, Fontaine JL, Bhavan K, Kim PJ, Williams JR, Hunt NA. Risk factors for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in diabetic foot infections. Diabet Foot Ankle. Apr 10, 2014. [CrossRef] 11 Lin SY, Lin NY, Huang YY, Hsieh CC, Huang YC. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage and infection among patients with diabetic foot ulcer. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. Apr, 2020
  10. 53(2):292-9. [CrossRef] 12 Alizargar J, Sharif M, Sharif A. Risk