medigraphic.com
Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán

2009, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Rev Invest Clin 2009; 61 (4)

Diabetic foot microbiology through biopsy cultures

Cabeza-de-Vaca F, Macías AE, Álvarez JA, Cuevas A, Ramírez AJ, Ramírez WA, Sifuentes-Osornio J

Language: Spanish
References: 24
Page: 281-285
PDF size: 271.24 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective. To determine the microbiology of diabetic foot wounds, through biopsy cultures. Materials and methods. Patients with diabetic foot and clinical data of infection were re cruited consecutively. Cultures were processed for aerobic or ganisms after mortar homogenization. For cases with multiple isolates, only the two predominant organisms were identified. The bacterial identification was carried out by biochemical pro cedures. The sensitivity to antibiotics was made by the disk dif fusion method. Results. A total of 91 biopsies were studied, 47 from men (52%). There were 102 isolates, 68 being Gram nega tive bacilli (67%), with predominance of Escherichia coli (21%). A total of 28 Gram positive cocci were isolated (28%) and 6 yeasts (6%). Of the 68 Gram negative bacilli, 24 were resistant to ciprofloxacin (35%). A total of 55 Enterobacteriaceae were isolated, of which 4 (7%) produced extended spectrum beta lac tamases. There were 8 Staphylococcus aureus isolates, 3 of which (38%) were resistant to methicillin. Conclusions. In comparison with reports from industrialized countries, we found a higher proportion of Gram negative and resistant or ganisms.


REFERENCES

  1. Caputo GM, Cavanagh PR, Ulbrecht JS, Gibbons GW, et al. Assessment and management of foot disease in patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 854 60.

  2. Frykberg RG. Diabetic foot ulcers: current concepts. J Foot Ankle Surg 1998; 37: 440 6.

  3. Joshi N, Caputo G, Weitekamp M, Karchmer A. Infections in patients with diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 1906 12.

  4. Bowler PG, Duerden BI, Armstrong DG. Wound microbiology and associated approaches to wound management. Clin Microbiol Rev 2001; 14: 244 69.

  5. Aragon SFJ, Ortiz RPP. Infección en el pie diabético. En: Mar tínez de Jesús FR (ed.). Pie diabético. Atención Integral. 2a. Ed. México: McGraw Hill; 2003, p. 143 53.

  6. Gilbert DN, Moellering RC, Sande MA. The Sanford guide to antimicrobial therapy. 36th Ed. Antimicrobial Therapy Inc. Hyde Park; 2006.

  7. Lipsky BA, Armstrong DG, Citron DM, Tice AD, et al. Ertape nem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for diabetic foot infections (SIDESTEP): a prospective, randomized, controlled, double blinded, multicentre trial. Lancet 2005; 366: 1695 703.

  8. Cunha BA. Antibiotic selection for diabetic foot infections: a review. J Foot Ankle Surg 2000; 39: 253 7.

  9. Cavanagh PR, Lipsky BA, Bradbury AW, Botek G. Treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Lancet 2005; 366: 1725 35.

  10. Lipsky B. Medical Treatment of diabetic foot infections. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39: S104 S114.

  11. Martinez GD. Cuidados del pie diabético. Un enfoque multidi ciplinario. 1st. Ed. España; Arán; 2001.

  12. Arreguin V, Cebada M, Simon JI, Bobadilla M, et al. Micro biología de las infecciones urinarias en pacientes ambulatorios. Opciones terapéuticas en tiempos de alta resistencia a los anti bioticos. Rev Invest Clin 2007; 59: 239 45.

  13. Sader HS, Gales, AC, Granacher TD, Pfaller MA, Jones RN. Pre valence of antimicrobial resistance among respiratory tract isolates in Latin America: results from SENTRY antimicrobial surveillance program (1997 98). Braz J Infecti Dis 2000; 4: 245 54.

  14. Armstrong DG, Lavery LA, Harkless LB. Validation of a dia betic wound classification system. Diabetes Care 1998; 21: 855 9.

  15. Lavery LA, Armstrong DG, Harkless LB. Classification of dia betic foot wounds. J Foot Ankle Surg 1996; 35: 528 31.

  16. Pittet D, Wysa B, Herter Clavel C, Kursteiner K, et al. Outcome of diabetic foot infections treated conservatively: a retrospecti ve cohort study with long term follow up. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159: 851 6.

  17. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance stan dards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Fifteenth International Supplement. M2-A8. 2005; 25: 11 58.

  18. Lwanga SK, Lemeshow S. Sample size determination in health studies. A practical manual. 1st. Ed. Geneva: World Health Or ganization; 1991.

  19. Senneville E, Melliez H, Beltrand E, Legout L, et al. Culture of percutaneous bone biopsy specimens for diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis: concordance with ulcer swab cultures. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 42: 57 62.

  20. Gadepalli R, Dhawan B, Sreenivas V, Kapil A, et al. A Clinico microbiological study of diabetic foot ulcers in an indian ter tiary Care Hospital. Diabetes Care 2006; 29: 1727 32.

  21. Citron DM, Goldstein EJ, Merriam CV, Lipsky BA, et al. Bac teriology of moderate to severe diabetic foot infections and in vitro activity of antimicrobial agents. J Clin Microbiol 2007; 45: 2819 28.

  22. Bansal E, Garg A, Bhatia S, Atri AK, Chander J. Spectrum of microbial flora in diabetic foot ulcers. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2008; 51: 204 8.

  23. Khosravi AD, Alavi SM, Sarami A, Montazeri EA, et al. Bacte riologic study of diabetic foot ulcer. Pak J Med Scien 2007; 23: 681 4.

  24. Raja NS. Microbiology of diabetic foot infections in a teaching hospital in Malaysia: A Retrospective Study of 194 cases. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 2007; 40: 39 44.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com