ABSTRACT
Purpose
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-E) may complicate the treatment of diabetic foot infections (DFIs). The aim of this study was to determine the risk factors for these pathogens in DFIs.
Material and methods
This was a prospective observational study of 167 consecutive adult patients with DFIs. The diagnosis and severity of DFIs were based on the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) classification system. Multivariate analyses were performed in order to identify risk factors for MRSA and ESBL-E infections.
Results
S. aureus was the most isolated pathogen (n= 82, 37.9 %) followed by Escherichia coli (n= 40, 18.5%). MRSA accounted for 57.3% of all S. aureus and 70% of Klebsiella pneumoniae and 25% of E. coli were ESBL producers, respectively. Deep ulcer [OR 8,563; 95% CI (1,068-4,727)], previous use of fluoroquinolones [OR 2,78; 95% CI (1,156-6,685)] and peripheral vasculopathy [OR 2,47; 95% CI (1.068-4.727)] were the independent predictors for MRSA infections; and osteomyelitis [OR 6,351; 95% CI (1,609-25,068)] and previous use of cephalosporins [OR 5,824; 95% CI (1,517-22,361)] for ESBL-E infections.
Conclusions
MRSA and ESBL-E have adquired a great clinical relevance in DFIs. The availability of their risk factors is very convenient to choose the empirical treatment in severe forms.
Keywords: diabetic foot infection, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, ESBL-producing Enterobacterales, risk factors, hospital admission
RESUMEN
Objetivo
Staphylococcus aureus resistente a meticilina (MRSA) y las enterobacterias productoras de betalactamasas (ESBL-E) pueden complicar el tratamiento de las infecciones del pie del diabético (DFIs). El objetivo de este estudio fue determinar los factores de riesgo de las infecciones por estos microorganismos en el pie del diabético
Material y métodos
Estudio observacional prospectivo de 167 pacientes consecutivos con infecciones del pie del diabético. El diagnóstico y gravedad de las infecciones se basó en la guía de la Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA). Para identificar los factores de riesgo de las infecciones por MRSA y (ESBL-E) se llevó a cabo mediante un estudio multivariante.
Resultados
S. aureus fue el microorganismo más aislado (n= 82; 37,9 %) seguido por Escherichia coli (n= 40; 18,5%). El 57,3% de S. aureus fueron MRSA y el 70% de Klebsiella pneumoniae y el 25% de E. coli eran productores ESBL, respetivamente. Los factores de riesgo independientes de las infecciones por MRSA fueron las úlceras profundas [OR 8,563; IC 95% (1,068-4,727)], uso previo de fluoroquinolonas [OR 2,78; IC 95% (1,156-6,685)] y la vasculopatía periférica [OR 2,47; IC 95% (1.068-4.727)], mientras que para las infecciones por (ESBL-E) lo fueron osteomielitis [OR 6,351; 95% IC 95% (1,609-25,068)] y el uso previo de cefalosporinas [OR 5,824; IC 95% (1,517-22,361)].
Conclusiones
MRSA y ESBL-E han adquirido una gran relevancia clínica en las DFIs. La disponibilidad de sus factores de riesgo es muy conveniente para elegir el tratamiento empí-rico en las formas graves.
Palabras clave: Infección del pie diabético, Staphylococcus aureus resistente a meticilina, enterobacterias productoras de ESBL, factores de riesgo, hospitalización
INTRODUCTION
Diabetic foot infections (DFIs) along with ischemia are the main underlying factors contributing to lower-extremity amputation in the United States and Europe [1,2]. The relative frequencies of microorganisms causing wound infections varying greatly among studies, type and severity of lesions, and geographic area [3]. Monomicrobial infections by aerobic gram-positive cocci (Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus spp.) are predominant organisms in acute and untreated ulcers, by contrast, chronic wounds infections are more frequently polymicrobial (aerobic Gram-positive cocci, Gram-negative bacilli and anaerobes) [3]. S. aureus is the most frequently isolated microorganism in diabetic foot ulcers in Spain, followed by Enterobacterales [1,4]. In addition, more than 30% of S. aureus are methicillin-resistant (MRSA) [4] and colonization or infection of chronic ulcers by MRSA can result in bacteremia between 8% and 22%, that is associated with a 30-day mortality of about 30% [5]. DFIs by extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-E) have been also described, but are less frequent in our environment [4,6,7]. Despite this, the information about multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) such as MRSA and ESBL-E as a cause of DFIs in patients requiring hospital admission, is not yet enough [8,9]. The emergence of MDROs can complicate the treatment of DFIs, and may even cause a worse course of the injury [10]. The aim of this study was to determine the bacterial profile and risk factors for MRSA and ESBL-E in patients with DFIs requiring hospital admission.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A single-institutional prospective observational study was performed with the inclusion of all consecutive adult diabetic patients with infected foot ulcers admitted to the Infectious Disease Department or General Surgery Department of Hospital Clinico Universitario Virgen de la Arrixaca in Murcia (Spain) from 2013 to 2017 for acute DFIs. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the hospital before conducting it (reference 2013-10-10-HCUVA). The patients were included after obtaining informed consents. The diagnosis and severity of DFIs were based on the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) classification system. Diabetic foot ulcers were also classified into three groups: 1) neuropathic lesions, 2) ischemic lesions and 3) mixed or neuro-ischemic lesions. Diabetic foot ulcers with infection involving skin and subcutaneous tissues were considered as deep ulcer [11]. Demographic data, hospitalization and antibiotic therapy within the previous 3 months, nursing home residence and underlying illnesses were recorded. A clinical evaluation including ulcer size and depth and neurological and vascular status was performed. Microbiological, laboratory, and radiographic evaluations were carried out during hospitalization, in keeping with the routine hospital practice. After washing surface of the ulcer with saline solution, three to five cultures were obtained at the time of admission by curetted material at the bottom of the wound, and bone biopsy was performed when osteomyelitis was suspected. Bacteria were isolated and identified by standard methods. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of the isolates was performed by an automated system VITEK® 2 (bioMérieux, marcy l´etoile, France) with AFTN 112 cards. ESBL-producing strains were phenotypically identified according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) recommendations [12]. Obesity was defined according to body mass index criteria [13]. Glomerular filtration rate was estimated from serum creatinine using the equation of Cockcroft-Gault [14]. Toronto Consensus Panel on Diabetic Neuropathy was used for diagnosis of diabetic neuropathy [15]. Diabetic retinopathy was divided in two major forms: nonproliferative (mild and moderate-severe) and proliferative by the absence or presence of abnormal new blood vessels in the retina, respectively [16]. Patients were treated according to the hospital protocol with parenteral antibiotics together with concomitant surgical debridement, revascularization (bypass), and/or reconstruction (skin graft) techniques.
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 18.0 software (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL). Quantitative variables were expressed by mean ± standard deviation, and qualitative variables by percentages. Significance was determined by the χ2 test and Fisher´s exact test, when necessary, for qualitative variables, and by t test or U-Mann-Whitney non-parametric tests, when necessary, for quantitative variables. Significance level was established at p ≤ 0.05. A stepwise logistic regression multivariate analyses was performed in order to identify risk factors for MRSA and ESBL-E infections. All variables showing differences in bivariate analyses (p < 0.1) were considered for inclusion in the multivariate model.
RESULTS
The study included 167 consecutive diabetic patients with foot infections. Swab samples from the bottom of the ulcer were taken in all cases and bone biopsy was performed in 82 (49%). A total of 216 microorganisms were isolated. S. aureus was the most isolated pathogen (n= 82, 37.9%) followed by Escherichia coli (n= 40, 18.5%). Other Enterobactericeae other than E. coli (n= 45, 20.8%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n= 12, 5.4%) were also common (Table 1). The number of aerobic gram-positive cocci was over aerobic gram-negative bacilli globally (110/100) and in samples taken from bone (51/35), but not in ulcers (60/65). Infections were polymicrobial in 95 cases (56.8%). Regarding bacterial resistance, 57.3% of S. aureus were MRSA (n=27, 57.4% in ulcer) and 25% of Enterobactericeae were ESBL producers (70% of Klebsiella pneumoniae, 25% of E. coli and 94% in bone) (Table 1). In addition, 25% of E. coli were resistant to ciprofloxacin, 22.5% to amoxicillin/clavulanic acid and 7.5% to carbapenems. P. aeruginosa shows resistance to ciprofloxacin (75%), piperacillin/tazobactam (75%), and carbapenems (50%). Surgical drainage and/ or debridement was performed in all patients. One hundred (60%) patients need digital amputation and 13 (7.8%) major amputation. The most frequently used antibiotic regiments were: clindamycin plus piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime or ertapenem (n= 118; 70.6%) and linezolid plus meropenem (n= 47; 28.1%).
Table 1.
Isolated microorganisms from ulcer and bone
| Microorganisms | Total no. (%) | Ulcer no. (%) | Bone no. (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Staphylococus aureus Escherichia coli Streptococcus pyogenes Enteroccus faecalis Pseudomonas aeruginosa Morganella morganii Proteus mirabilis Klebsiella pneumoniae Enterobacter cloacae Klebsiella oxytoca Acinetobacter baumanii Providencia stuartii Bacteroides urealyticus Staphylococcus hominis Peptostreptococcus spp Clostridium perfringens Candida albicans Total |
82 (37.9)a 40 (18.5)b 14 (6.4) 13 (6) 12 (5.5) 12 (5.5) 11 (5) 10 (4.6)c 7 (3.2) 3 (1.3) 3 (1.3) 2 (0.9) 3 (1.3) 1 (0.4) 1 (0.4) 1 (0.4) 1 (0.4) 216 (100) |
46 (56.9) 26 (65) 8 (57.1) 5 (38.5) 9 (75) 5 (41.7) 10 (90.9) 3 (30) 6 (85.7) 3 (100) 1 (33.3) 2 (100) 3 (100) 1 (100) 1 (100) 0 1 (100) 130 (60.1) |
36 (43.9) 14 (35) 6 (42.8) 8 (61.5) 3 (25) 7 (58.3) 1 (9.1) 7 (70) 1 (14.3) 0 2 (66.7) 0 0 0 0 1 (100) 0 86 (39.8) |
MRSA: 47/82 (57.3%), 27 (57.4%) ulcer; b,cESBL-producing Enterobacterales: 17/68 (25%), 16/17 (94%) in bone, E. coli 10/40 (25%), K. pneumoniae 7/10 (70%)
Table 2 shows patient’s characteristics, comorbidities, location of infection and severity distributed by main causative agents and development of antimicrobial resistance or not, respectively. The mean age of the subjects was 62.9+12.1 years and 77.6% of the patients were male. The mean time of diabetes evolution was 20+8.39 years and the mean of length of stay (LOS) 17.08+10.11 days. All patients had a Charlson index >3, 90% neuropathy, 85% deep ulcer and 91% previous ulcer. Moderate infections were present in 118 (70.7%) patients and osteomyelitis in 69 (41.3 %).
Table 2.
Patient’s characteristics, comorbidities, location of infection and severity distributed by main causative agents and development of antimicrobial resistance or not, respectively. Data expressed as no. (%) or mean ± SD
| Overall n= 167 |
MSSA n= 35 |
MRSA n= 47 |
p | E n= 68 |
ESBL-E n= 17 |
p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male sex, no. (%) | 133 (79.6) | 28 (80) | 35 (74.4) | 0.376 | 57 (83.8) | 13 (76.4) | 0.346 |
| Age (years), mean+SD | 62.6+12.1 | 62.4+15.4 | 60.24.9 | 0.645 | 53.3+15.6 | 65.7+12.3 | 0.558 |
| LOS (days), mean+SD | 17.08+10.1 | 15.8±8.7 | 18.36±11.2 | 0.872 | 7.4±11.3 | 32.6±8.8 | 0.234 |
| Diabetes evolution (years), mean+SD | 20.08+8.39 | 20.6±3.5 | 22.7±7.1 | 0.22 | 19.7±8.06 | 19.7±9.01 | 0.379 |
| Diabetes type 2, no. (%) | 149 (89.2) | 32 (91.4) | 43 (91.4) | 0.645 | 60 (88.2) | 14 (82.3) | 0.382 |
| Diabetes treatment, no. (%) OAA Insulin+OAA |
19 (11.3) 148 (88.6) |
4 (11.4) 31 (88.5) |
1 (2.1) 44 (93.6) |
0.14 0.21 |
7 (10.2) 61 (89.7) |
7 (41.1) 10 (58.8) |
0.87 0.41 |
| Glycated hemoglobina, no.(%) | 112 (67) | 27 (77.1) | 31 (65.9) | 0.124 | 51 (75) | 13 (76.4) | 0.403 |
| Smoking, no. (%) | 83 (49.7) | 16 (45,7) | 38 (80.8) | 0.002 | 22 (32.3) | 7 (41.1) | 0.576 |
| Obesitiy, no. (%) | 51 (30.5) | 16 (45,7) | 32 (68) | 0.05 | 33 (48.5) | 7 (41.1) | 0.640 |
| Hypertension, no. (%) | 136 (81.4) | 16 (45,7) | 44 (93.6) | 0.119 | 53 (77.9) | 10 (58.8) | 0.09 |
| Vasculopathy, no. (%) | 51 (30.5) | 18 (51.4) | 38 (80.8) | 0.05 | 37 (54.4) | 10 (58.8) | 0.161 |
| Neuropathy, no. (%) | 151 (90.4) | 31 (88.5) | 45 (95.7) | 0.157 | 59 (86.7) | 16 (94.1) | 0.614 |
| Retinopathy, no. (%) Mild Moderate-severe Proliferative |
8 (4.7) 70 (41.9) 56 (33.5) |
1 (2.8) 14 (40) 21 (60) |
1 (2.1) 16 (34) 36 (76.5) |
0.365 0.246 0.023 |
3 (4.4) 33 (48.5) - |
3 (17.6) 7 (41.1) - |
0.103 0.636 - |
| Renal insufficiency, no. (%) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 |
14 (8.3) 53 (31.7) 39 (23.3) 23 (13.7) |
2 (5,7) 14 (40) 3 (8.5) 5 (14.2) |
3 (6,3) 16 (34) 8 (17) 7 (14.8) |
0.349 0.332 0.392 0.173 |
3 (4.4) 29 (42.6) 21 (30.8) 8 (11.7) |
6 (35.2) 1 (5.8) 7 (41.1) 3 (17.6) |
0.358 0.186 0.259 0.331 |
| Prior infectionb, no. (%) | 152 (91) | 31 (88,5) | 35 (74.4) | 0.210 | 61 (89.7) | 15 (88.2) | 0.575 |
| Prior antibioticsb, no. (%) | 113 (67.6) | 21 (60) | 39 (82.9) | 0.019 | 48 (70.5) | 15 (88.2) | 0.005 |
| Ulcer, no. (%) Forefoot Size > 2 cm2 Deepc Mixed Supuration Fetid odor Left foot |
122 (73) 96 (57.4) 143 (85.6) 108 (64.6) 112 (67) 108 (64.6) 78 (46.7) |
29 (82.8) 17 (48.5) 29 (82,8) 25 (71.4) 25 (71.4) 24 (68.5) 15 (42.8) |
29 (61.7) 38 (80.8) 46 (97.8) 28 (59.5) 29 (61.7) 28 (59.5) 32 (68) |
0.111 0.002 0.022 0.191 0.248 0.274 0.04 |
52 (76.4) 38 (55.8) 57 (83.8) 45 (66.1) 45 (66.1) 46 (67.6) 24 (35.2) |
12 (70.5) 13 (76.4) 11 (64.7) 10 (58.8) 13 (76.4) 10 (58.8) 7 (41.1) |
0.413 0.04 0.081 0.383 0.306 0.339 0.444 |
| Osteomyelitis, no. (%) | 69 (41.3) | 16 (45.7) | 20 (42.5) | 0.563 | 30 (44.1) | 16 (94.1) | 0.012 |
| Severity infection, no. (%) Moderate Severe |
108 (64.6) 57 (34.1) |
28 (80) 7 (20) |
33 (70.2) 12 (25.5) |
0.66 0.558 |
41 (60.2) 27 (39.7) |
6 (35.2) 11 (64.7) |
0.483 0.05 |
| McCabe, no. (%) Nonfatal Ultimaly fatal |
142 (85) 23 (13.7) |
31 (88.5) 4 (11,4) |
33 (73.3) 12 (25.5) |
0.754 0.435 |
64 (94.1) 3 (4.4) |
14 (82.4) 3 (17.6) |
0.401 0.103 |
MSSA: methicillin-susceptible S. aureus; MRSA: methicillin-resistant S. aurerus; E: non ESBL-producing Enterobacterales; ESBL-E: ESBL-producing Enterobacterales; LOS: Length of stay; OAA: oral antidiabetic agents; a> 7%; bExposure within 3 previous months; cerythema > 2 cm, or involving structures deeper than skin and subcutaneous tissues
In the univariate analysis, smoking (p= 0.002), obesity (p= 0.05), proliferative retinopathy (p= 0.023), peripheral vasculopathy (p= 0.05), wound size > 2 cm2 (p= 0.002), deep wound (p= 0.022), left wounds (p= 0.04) and previous use of fluoroquinolones (3 months before) (p= 0.019) were the variables significantly associated with MRSA infections, while use of cephalosporins (p= 0.005), wound size > 2 cm2 (p= 0.04), severity of infection (p= 0.05) and osteomyelitis (p= 0.012) were associated with ESBL-E infections (Table 2).
In the multivariate analysis, deep ulcer [OR 8,563; 95% CI (1,068-4,727)], previous use of fluoroquinolones [OR 2,78; 95% CI (1,156-6,685)] and peripheral vasculopathy [OR 2,47; 95% CI (1.068-4.727)] were the independent predictors for MRSA infections; and osteomyelitis [OR 6,351; 95% CI (1,609-25,068)] and previous use of cephalosporins (3 months before) [OR 5,824; 95% CI (1,517-22,361)] for ESBL-E infections (Table 3).
DISCUSSION
As in previous studies performed in Spain and in other industrialized countries, S. aureus continues to be the most common isolated pathogen in DFIs, followed by E. coli and other Enterobactericeae. Overall, about 75% of DFIs in Spain are due to S. aureus and Enterobactericeae [1,4] and the empiric treatment should consider their current rates of resistance. MRSA remains above 30%, but ESBL-E (25% globally), particularly K. pneumoniae, have emerged as a serious and common problem in patients with diabetic foot ulcer that is caused by MDROs are associated with higher morbidity and mortality than those caused by their susceptible counterparts [10], however, their coverage is not always suitable in all cases from ecologically and economically. Risk factors for MDROs infection are often common and include prior colonization, infection and use of antimicrobials, recent hospitalization, nursing-home residence and underlying diseases (diabetes mellitus, chronic renal failure in program of dialysis and hypoproteinemia) [18,19].
Previous retrospective and prospective studies in diabetic foot ulcers have also identified some risk factors for MRSA colonization or infection and for ESBL-E infection, such as wound size, osteomyelitis, history of MRSA foot colonization or infection, nasal carriage of MRSA, colonization and infection by others MDROs, prior use of antibiotics, long course of ulcer, chronic kidney disease, proliferative retinopathy, hypertension and poor glycemic control [6,8,20-26]. In the present prospective study with 167 patients included, we have identified three risk factors for MRSA infection (deep ulcer, prior treatment with fluoroquinolones and peripheral vasculopathy) that could explain 71.8% of them, and two for ESBL-E infection (osteomyelitis and previous use of cephalosporins), confirming some findings already described. The depth (tissue loss) of ulcer, one of the criteria used to develop the PEDIS system [27] and a recommendation from the IDSA to assess the DFIs [11], is the first time described as a risk factor for MRSA infection. However, there was no association between severity of lesion and MRSA infection. Peripheral vasculopathy neither has been identified as another risk factor for MRSA infection, but as a more common underlying condition [22]. Previous use of antibiotics was another predictive risk factor observed (fluoroquinolones for MRSA infections and cephalosporins for ESBL-E infections). The association between antibiobic exposure and MDROs has been frequently reported in DFIs and elsewhere [8,18,23,24,28,29]. The use of antimicrobial agents in diabetic foot ulcers, often excessive and unnecessary, can facilitate conditions in which bacteria with mechanisms of resistance experience a competitive advantage [18,25]. The mechanism for fluoroquinolones and cephalosporins to select MDROs remains unclear, but some authors believe it could be by selective inhibition or by killing of the more susceptible bacterial populations [18]. So far, osteomyelitis had only been recognized as a risk factors for MRSA infection in diabetic patients [8,22-24]. This finding in ESBL-E can help to know their risk factors, of which there are few data, mostly from Indian studies [6-8]. This fact is not surprising since gran-negative bacilli is an important cause of diabetic foot osteomyelitis and they have been associated with wounds caused by traumatic injury [30]. From a practical point of view, interventions directed at preventing the transmission of MDROs between diabetic patients and to reduce the inappropriate use of fluoroquinolones and cephalosporins in DFIs, should be attempted, as only modifiable variables.
Although this is one of the largest prospective series of DFIs to know risk factors for MDROs, the study was performed in a single centre, whose local epidemiology may limit the conclusions. However, the microbiological profile found in our series is very similar to that other previous Spanish studies [1-4].
In conclusion, MRSA and ESBL-E have currently adquired a great clinical relevance in the DFIs. The availability of risk factors for them is very convenient for the choice of empirical treatment, especially, in moderate-severe infections. consistent with the prevalence of these organisms in our environment [3,4,17]. Infections
FUNDING
None to declare.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
All authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
References
- 1.Barberán J, Granizo JJ, Aguilar L, Alguacil R, Sainz F, Menéndez MA et al. Predictive model of short-term amputation during hospitalization of patients due to acute diabetic foot infections. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 2010; 28:680-4. doi: 10.1016/j.eimc.2009.12.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.van Battum P, Schaper N, Prompers L, Apelqvist J, Jude E, Piaggesi A et al. Differences in minor amputation rate in diabetic foot disease throughout Europe are in part explained by differences in disease severity at presentation. Diabet Med 2011; 28:199–205. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2010.03192.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Citron DM, Goldstein EJ, Merriam CV, Lipsky BA, Abramson MA. Bacteriology of moderate-to-severe diabetic foot infections and in Vitro activity of antimicrobial agents. J Clin Microbiol. 2007; 45:2819–28. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00551-07 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Martínez-Gómez DA, Ramírez-Almagro C, Campillo-Soto A, Morales-Cuenca G, Pagán-Ortiz, Aguayo-Albasini JL. Infecciones del pie diabético. Prevalencia de los distintos microorganismos y sensibilidad a los antimicrobianos. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 2009; 27:317–21. doi: 10.1016/j.eimc.2008.07.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Gurusamy KS, Koti R, Toon CD, Wilson P, Davidson BR. Antibiotic therapy for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in non surgical wounds. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;18;(11):CD010427. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010427. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Shakil S, Khan AU. Infected foot ulcers in male and female diabetic patients: a clinico-bioinformative study. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2010; 9:2 doi: 10.1186/1476-0711-9-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Zubair M, Malik A, Ahmad J. Study of plasmid-mediated extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing strains of Enterobacterales, isolated from diabetic foot infections in a North Indian tertiary-care hospital. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012;14:315-24. doi: 10.1089/dia.2011.0197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Eleftheriadou I, Tentolouris N, Argiana V, Jude E, Boulton AJ. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in diabetic foot infections. Drugs. 2010; 70:1785-97. doi: 10.2165/11538070-000000000-00000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Zubair M, Malik A, Ahmad J. Clinico-bacteriology and risk factors for the diabetic foot infection with multidrug resistant microor-ganisms in North India. Biol Med. 2010; 2: 22-34. doi: 10.1016/j.foot.2010.10.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Vardakas KZ, Horianopoulou M, Falagas ME. Factors associated with treatment failure in patients with diabetic foot infections: an analysis of data from randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2008; 80:344–51. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2008.01.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Lipsky BA, Berendt AR, Cornia PB, Pile JC, Peters EJG, Armstrong DG et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2012; 54:132–73. doi: 10.1093/cid/cis460. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. In: 20th informational supplement (June 2010 Update). Approved standard M100-S20-U. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2010. [accessed 12 december 2019]. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Deurenberg P, Weststrate JA, Saidell JC. Body mass index as a measure of body fatness: age and sex specific prediction formulas. Br J Nutr. 1991;65:105-14. doi: 10.1079/bjn19910073. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Cockcroft DW, Gault MH. Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine. Nephron 1976; 16:31-41. doi: 10.1159/000180580. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Tesfaye S, Boulton AJM, Dyck PJ, Freeman R, Horowitz M, Kempler P et al. Diabetic neuropathies: update on definitions, diagnostic criteria, estimation of severity and treatments. Diabetes Care. 2010; 33: 2285–93. doi: 10.2337/dc10-1303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Frank RN. Diabetic retinopathy. N Engl J Med. 2004; 350:48-58. doi: 10.2337/dc10-1303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Ruiz de Alegría C, Rodríguez Baño J, Cano ME, Hernández Bello JR, Calvo J, Román E et al. Klebsiella pneumoniae Strains Producing Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamases in Spain: Microbiological and Clinical Features. J Clin Microbiol. 2011; 49:1134-6. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02514-10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Tacconelli E, De Angelis G, Cataldo MA, Pozzi E, Cauda R. Does antibiotic exposure increase the risk of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolation? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008; 61:26-38. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkm416. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Rodríguez-Baño J, Picón E, Gijón P, Gijón P, Hernández JR, Ruíz M, Peña C et al. Community-onset bacteremia due to extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli: risk factors and prognosis. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 50:40-8. doi: 10.1086/649537. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Tentolouris N, Petrikkos G, Vallianou N, Zachos C, Daikos GL, Tsapogas P et al. Prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in infected and uninfected diabetic foot ulcers. Clin Microbiol Infect 2006; 12: 186–9.o. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2005.01279.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Yates C, May K, Hale T, Allard B, Rowlingnd N, Freeman A et al. Wound chronicity, inpatient care, and chronic kidney disease pre-dispose to MRSA infection in diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Care. 2009; 32:1907-9. doi: 10.2337/dc09-0295. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Wang SH, Sun ZL, Guo YJ, Yang BQ, Yuan Y, Wei Q et al. Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated from foot ulcers in diabetic patients in a Chinese care hospital: risk factors for infection and prevalence. J Med Microbiol. 2010; 59(Pt 10):1219-24. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.020537-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Ding Q, Li DQ, Wang PH, Chu YJ, Meng SY, Sun Q. Risk factors for infections of methicillin-resistant Staphylococci in diabetic foot patients. Zhonghua yi xue za zhi. 2012; 92:228-31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Feng SH, Chu YJ, Wang PH, Jun X, Min D, Li XM. Risk factors and gene type for infections of MRSA in diabetic foot patients in Tianjin, China. Int J Low Extrem Wounds 2013; 12:106-12. doi: 10.1177/1534734613489991. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Larvey LA, La Fontaine J, Bhavan K, Kim PJ, Willians JR, Hunt NA. Risk factors for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in diabetic foot infections. Diabet Foot Ankl. 2014;5. doi: 10.3402/dfa.v5.23575. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Reveles KR, Duhon BM, Moore RJ, Hand EO, Howell CK. Epidemiology of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus diabetic foot infections in a large academic hospital: implications for antimicrobial Stewardship. PLos ONE. 2016; 11(8):e0161658 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161658 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Schaper NC. Diabetic foot ulcer classification system for research purposes: a progress report on criteria for including patients in research studies. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2004; 20 Suppl 1:S90-5. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.464. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Kandemir O, Akbay E, Sahin E, Milcan A, Gen R. Risk factors for infection of the diabetic foot with multi-antibiotic resistant microorganisms. J Infect.2007; 54:439-45. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2006.08.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Bell BG, Schellevis F, Stobberingh E, Goossens H, Pringle M. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of antibiotic consumption on antibiotic resistance. BMC Infect Dis. 2014; 14:13 doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-14-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Aragón-Sánchez J, Lipsky BA, Lázaro-Martínez JL. Gram-negative diabetic foot osteomyelitis: risk factors and clinical presentation. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2013; 12:63-8. doi: 10.1177/1534734613477423. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]