Journal of Diabetes Research

Journal of Diabetes Research / 2021 / Article
Special Issue

Lower Extremity Ischaemia in Patients with Diabetes

View this Special Issue

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2021 |Article ID 9947233 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9947233

Rafał Małecki, Kamil Klimas, Aleksandra Kujawa, "Different Patterns of Bacterial Species and Antibiotic Susceptibility in Diabetic Foot Syndrome with and without Coexistent Ischemia", Journal of Diabetes Research, vol. 2021, Article ID 9947233, 9 pages, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9947233

Different Patterns of Bacterial Species and Antibiotic Susceptibility in Diabetic Foot Syndrome with and without Coexistent Ischemia

Academic Editor: Agata Stanek
Received25 Mar 2021
Accepted19 Apr 2021
Published28 Apr 2021

Abstract

Aims. Infection in diabetic foot syndrome (DFS) represents serious medical problem, and the annual risk of DFS in diabetic patients is 2.5%. More than half of the patients with DFS have symptoms of extremity ischemia (peripheral arterial disease (PAD)). The aim of the present study was to analyze the frequency of particular bacterial strains in people with DFS, analyze the impact of arterial ischemia on the occurrence of a given pathogen, and evaluate the antibacterial treatment based on the results of bacterial culture. Methods. The analysis included 844 bacterial strains obtained from 291 patients with DFS hospitalized in the Department of Angiology in years 2016–2019. Results. The most common isolates were Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, Enterobacter cloacae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter baumannii. Nearly 20% of the species were found to have at least one resistance mechanism. In patients with PAD, Gram-negative species were isolated more commonly than in people without PAD. The most useful drugs in DFS in hospitalized patients are penicillins with beta-lactamase inhibitors, 3rd- to 5th-generation cephalosporins (with many exceptions), carbapenems, aminoglycosides, and tigecycline. Conclusions. Bacterial strains isolated from ischemic DFS are more resistant to commonly used antibacterial agents, i.e., penicillins (including penicillins with beta-lactamase inhibitors), cephalosporins (except for the 4th and 5th generations), glycopeptides, and linezolid. When planning treatment of hospitalized patients with DFS, the presence of ischemia in DFS should always be taken into consideration. It determines the occurrence of particular bacterial species and the choice of antibacterial agent and may determine the rate of treatment success.

1. Introduction

Diabetes mellitus is a social disease with the prevalence more than 5% that exerts a heavy burden on the healthcare system. One of the most common chronic complications of diabetes mellitus is diabetic foot syndrome (DFS)—defined as an infection, ulceration, and/or destruction of the foot in patients with diabetic neuropathy or peripheral arterial disease (PAD). The estimated global prevalence of DFS is 6.3% among patients with this disease [1]; it is also known that 20% of all diabetic patients require hospitalization because of DFS, and the annual risk of developing this complication is 2.5% [2].

One of the most serious problems faced by physicians treating patients with DFS is an introduction of appropriate empiric antibacterial therapy before the results of microbiological culture are collected and antibiogram is available. The aim of the present study was to analyze the frequency of particular bacterial strains in people with DFS, analyze the impact of arterial ischemia on the occurrence of a given pathogen, and evaluate the antibacterial treatment in this group of patients, taking into account the presence of PAD.

2. Material and Methods

The analysis included 291 patients hospitalized in the Angiology Clinic in the years 2016–2019 with a diagnosis of DFS with infection. According to IDSA guidelines, infection was diagnosed if two symptoms of inflammation (erythema, warmth, tenderness, pain, and induration) or purulent secretion were found [3]. In all the patients, a microbiological culture was performed using properly obtained material from ulceration (wound). The material was taken after rinsing the wound with 0.9% NaCl solution from the most profound obtainable tissues; tissue aspirates and material collected during surgical debridement or amputation were also cultured. The disk-diffusion method with paper discs impregnated with antibiotics at a specific concentration was used to determine the susceptibility of microorganisms to antibiotics and chemotherapeutics. The detailed protocol of the testing can be found in the literature [4]. The size of the inhibition zone around the disc indicates the susceptibility of the particular bacterial strain to the analyzed antibacterial agent.

The patients were classified as having ischemic DFS (if peripheral arterial disease (PAD) was present, irrespective of the presence of polyneuropathy) or as having nonischemic DFS (if peripheral arterial disease was absent and there was polyneuropathy). Polyneuropathy was diagnosed based on the patient’s history and the results of physical examination including assessment of temperature (using Tip-Therm), touch (10 g monofilament), pinprick, vibration (128 Hz tuning fork), and reflexes (Achilles tendon reflex and knee reflex) [5]. If the results of neurological examination were not conclusive, electromyography and electroneurography were performed. The diagnosis of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) was established according to the current guidelines by means of accessory examinations, i.e., ankle-brachial index (ABI), Doppler ultrasound of the extremity vessels, computed tomography angiography, angio-MRI, or arteriography [6].

The obtained results were analyzed statistically. In the case of normally distributed variables (identified by the Shapiro-Wilk test) and homogeneity of variance (confirmed by the Levene test), differences between groups were determined using Student’s -test. Alternatively, in the case of nonnormal distributed variables, the Mann–Whitney test was applied. Intergroup differences in the percentage distributions of dichotomous variables were analyzed with Pearson’s test. value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All calculations were conducted with the Statistica version 13.3 (TIBCO Software Inc.).

3. Results

The analysis included 844 bacterial strains obtained from 291 patients with DFS (183 males and 108 females) at the mean age of 65.38 (±11.80) years. One bacteria strain was obtained only in 99 people (34.02%), 2 strains in 66 people (22.68%), 3 strains in 44 people (15.12%), and more than 3 strains in 82 cases (28.18%). Gram-positive (, 50.47%) and Gram-negative strains (, 49.53%) occurred almost equally often. 52 strains of anaerobic bacteria (6.16%) were isolated.

The most common isolated bacteria were Staphylococcus aureus (, 25.00%), Enterococcus faecalis (, 11.37%), Enterobacter cloacae (, 7.82%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (, 6.87%), and Acinetobacter baumannii (, 6.40%). All isolated strains are presented in Table 1, in patients with nonischemic DFS in Table 2, and in patients with ischemic DFS in Table 3. As many as 162 isolated strains (19.19%) were found to have at least one resistance mechanism; the most important types of resistance and its percentage shared in particular bacteria are presented in Table 4.


Number of isolatesPercent

Staphylococcus aureus21125.00
Enterococcus faecalis9611.37
Enterobacter cloacae667.82
Pseudomonas aeruginosa586.87
Acinetobacter baumannii546.40
Klebsiella pneumoniae505.92
Escherichia coli445.21
Proteus mirabilis313.67
Streptococcus agalactiae242.84
Proteus spp.192.25
Enterococcus faecium172.01
Morganella morganii172.01
Finegoldia magna121.42
Enterobacter aerogenes91.07
Klebsiella oxytoca91.07
Streptococcus mitis91.07
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia70.83
Veillonella spp.60.71
Anaerococcus prevotii50.59
Citrobacter freundii50.59
Peptoniphilus asaccharolyticus50.59
Streptococcus dysgalactiae50.59
Bacteroides fragilis40.47
Citrobacter braakii40.47
Proteus vulgaris40.47
Proteus penneri40.47
Streptococcus pyogenes40.47
Streptococcus constellatus40.47
Clostridium sporogenes30.36
Prevotella spp.30.36
Providencia rettgeri30.36
Serratia marcescens30.36
Citrobacter koseri30.36
Acinetobacter lwoffii20.24
Actinomyces naeslundii20.24
Bacteroides distasonis20.24
Bifidobacterium spp.20.24
Citrobacter youngae20.24
Clostridium innocuum20.24
Clostridium novyi20.24
Corynebacterium striatum20.24
Lactobacillus fermentum20.24
Peptostreptococcus spp.20.24
Prevotella melaninogenica20.24
Propionibacterium acnes20.24
Staphylococcus epidermidis20.24
Alcaligenes denitrificans10.12
Bacteroides uniformis10.12
Clostridium subterminale10.12
Clostridium perfringens10.12
Clostridium hastiforme10.12
Corynebacterium amycolatum10.12
Fusobacterium necrophorum10.12
Gemella morbillorum10.12
Lactobacillus paracasei10.12
Pseudomonas oleovorans10.12
Peptostreptococcus anaerobius10.12
Peptostreptococcus prevotii10.12
Peptostreptococcus tetradius10.12
Prevotella loescheii10.12
Prevotella oris10.12
Providencia stuartii10.12
Staphylococcus hominis10.12
Staphylococcus lugdunensis10.12
Staphylococcus simulans10.12
Streptococcus spp.10.12


Number of isolatesPercent

Staphylococcus aureus MSS8814.47%
Enterococcus faecalis487.89%
Pseudomonas aeruginosa416.74%
Enterobacter cloacae335.42%
Escherichia coli325.26%
Staphylococcus aureus MRSA, MLSB254.11%
Acinetobacter baumannii MDR243.95%
Klebsiella pneumoniae243.95%
Enterobacter cloacae ESBL203.29%
Proteus mirabilis172.80%
Staphylococcus aureus MSS, MLSB172.80%
Proteus spp.152.47%
Enterococcus faecalis HLAR142.30%
Klebsiella pneumoniae ESBL132.14%
Streptococcus agalactiae121.97%
Staphylococcus aureus MRSA121.97%
Morganella morganii111.81%
Acinetobacter baumannii101.64%
Finegoldia magna101.64%
Klebsiella oxytoca81.32%
Enterobacter aerogenes81.32%
Streptococcus mitis60.99%
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia50.82%
Peptoniphilus asaccharolyticus50.82%
Enterococcus faecium HLAR50.82%
Enterococcus faecium50.82%
Veillonella spp.40.66%
Proteus penneri40.66%
Escherichia coli ESBL40.66%
Citrobacter freundii40.66%
Anaerococcus prevotii40.66%
Bacteroides fragilis40.66%
Streptococcus agalactiae MLSB30.49%
Serratia marcescens30.49%
Providencia rettgeri30.49%
Pseudomonas aeruginosa MDR, MBL30.49%
Pseudomonas aeruginosa MDR30.49%
Streptococcus constellatus20.33%
Proteus vulgaris20.33%
Propionibacterium acnes20.33%
Prevotella spp.20.33%
Prevotella melaninogenica20.33%
Peptostreptococcus spp.20.33%
Morganella morganii ESBL20.33%
Enterococcus faecium HLAR, VRE20.33%
Corynebacterium striatum20.33%
Clostridium novyi20.33%
Citrobacter braakii AMP C20.33%
Bacteroides distasonis20.33%
Acinetobacter lwoffii20.33%
Citrobacter braakii20.33%
Streptococcus pyogenes10.16%
Staphylococcus simulans10.16%
Staphylococcus lugdunensis MLSB, MRS10.16%
Staphylococcus epidermidis MRS10.16%
Staphylococcus epidermidis10.16%
Pseudomonas oleovorans10.16%
Proteus mirabilis ESBL10.16%
Prevotella oris10.16%
Prevotella loescheii10.16%
Peptostreptococcus tetradius10.16%
Peptostreptococcus prevotii10.16%
Peptostreptococcus anaerobius10.16%
Pseudomonas aeruginosa MBL10.16%
Lactobacillus paracasei10.16%
Lactobacillus fermentum10.16%
Fusobacterium necrophorum10.16%
Enterococcus faecalis HLAR, VRE10.16%
Enterobacter cloacae AMP C, ESBL10.16%
Enterobacter cloacae AMP C10.16%
Corynebacterium amycolatum10.16%
Clostridium perfringens10.16%
Clostridium subterminale10.16%
Clostridium sporogenes10.16%
Clostridium innocuum10.16%
Clostridium hastiforme10.16%
Citrobacter youngae AMP C10.16%
Citrobacter youngae10.16%
Citrobacter koseri10.16%
Citrobacter freundii ESBL10.16%
Bifidobacterium spp.10.16%
Bacteroides uniformis10.16%
Alcaligenes denitrificans10.16%
Staphylococcus hominis10.16%

Abbreviations: MSS: methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus; MRSA: methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; MLSB: macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin B resistance; MDR: multiple drug resistant; ESBL: extended spectrum beta-lactamase; HLAR: high-level aminoglycoside resistance; MBL: metallo-beta-lactamase; VRE: vancomycin-resistant enterococci; AMP C: AmpC beta-lactamases.

Number of isolatesPercent

Staphylococcus aureus MSS3816.10%
Enterococcus faecalis2611.02%
Acinetobacter baumannii MDR145.93%
Proteus mirabilis135.51%
Staphylococcus aureus MLSB135.51%
Staphylococcus aureus MRSA, MLSB114.66%
Pseudomonas aeruginosa104.24%
Enterobacter cloacae93.81%
Klebsiella pneumoniae93.81%
Escherichia coli83.39%
Enterococcus faecalis HLAR72.97%
Staphylococcus aureus MRSA72.97%
Streptococcus agalactiae72.97%
Acinetobacter baumannii62.54%
Morganella morganii41.69%
Proteus spp.41.69%
Streptococcus dysgalactiae41.69%
Enterococcus faecium31.27%
Streptococcus mitis31.27%
Streptococcus pyogenes31.27%
Actinomyces naeslundii20.85%
Citrobacter koseri20.85%
Clostridium sporogenes20.85%
Finegoldia magna20.85%
Klebsiella pneumoniae ESBL20.85%
Proteus vulgaris20.85%
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia20.85%
Streptococcus agalactiae MLSB20.85%
Streptococcus constellatus20.85%
Veillonella spp.20.85%
Anaerococcus prevotii10.42%
Bifidobacterium spp.10.42%
Clostridium innocuum10.42%
Enterobacter cloacae AMP C, ESBL10.42%
Enterobacter cloacae ESBL10.42%
Enterococcus faecium HLAR10.42%
Enterococcus faecium HLAR, VRE10.42%
Enterobacter aerogenes10.42%
Gemella morbillorum10.42%
Klebsiella oxytoca10.42%
Klebsiella pneumoniae MBL MDR10.42%
Klebsiella pneumoniae MDR10.42%
Lactobacillus fermentum10.42%
Prevotella spp.10.42%
Providencia stuartii ESBL, AMP C10.42%
Streptococcus dysgalactiae MLSB10.42%
Streptococcus spp.10.42%

Abbreviations: MSS: methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus; MDR: multiple drug resistant; MLSB: macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin B resistance; MRSA: methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; HLAR: high-level aminoglycoside resistance; ESBL: extended spectrum beta-lactamase; AMP C: AmpC beta-lactamases; VRE: vancomycin-resistant enterococci; MBL: metallo-beta-lactamase.

Species and resistance mechanismPercentage of isolated strains with the particular mechanism

Acinetobacter baumannii MDR70.37%
Staphylococcus aureus MRSA9.00%
Staphylococcus aureus MLSB13.74%
Staphylococcus aureus MRSA, MLSB17.06%
Enterococcus faecalis HLAR21.88%
Enterococcus faecalis HLAR, VRE ()4.17%
Enterococcus faecium HLAR, VRE ()17.64%
Enterobacter cloacae ESBL32.31%
Enterobacter cloacae ESBL, AMP C ()3.08%
Klebsiella pneumoniae ESBL30%
Klebsiella pneumoniae MBL, MDR ()0.50%
Escherichia coli ESBL9.10%
Proteus mirabilis ESBL ()3.20%
Morganella morganii ESBL ()11.76%
Pseudomonas aeruginosa MDR, MBL ()5.17%

MDR: multiple drug resistant; MRSA: methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; MLSB: macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin B resistance; HLAR: high-level aminoglycoside resistance; VRE: vancomycin-resistant enterococci; ESBL: extended spectrum beta-lactamase; AMP C: AmpC beta-lactamases; MBL: metallo-beta-lactamase.

Relationships between the results of laboratory test and the etiological factor were nonsignificant, with the exception of the percentage of glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). HbA1c was higher in infections with E. faecalis than in other bacteria (9.26 vs. 8.68%, ); a similar relationship was found for A. baumannii (9.31 vs. 8.72%, ). On the other hand, in people with E. cloacae infection, a lower level of HbA1c was observed compared to other bacteria (8.13 vs. 8.80%, ); a similar trend was shown regarding P. aeruginosa infection (7.96 vs. 8.81%, ).

369 isolates (43.72%) were obtained from people with neuropathic-ischemic DFS, 239 (28.32%) from ischemic DFS, and 236 (27.96%) from neuropathic DFS. In patients with PAD, Gram-negative species were isolated more commonly than in people with normal extremity perfusion (53.18 vs. 40.25%, ) (Figure 1), whilst anaerobes were cultured equally often in both groups. In patients with PAD, E. cloacae was isolated almost twice as often as in patients with normal extremity perfusion (8.88 vs. 4.66%); in other cases, there were no significant differences in regard to main etiological factors.

Carbapenems, especially meropenem, tigecycline, and aminoglycosides turned out to be the most useful antibiotics in monotherapy followed by 4th and 5th generations of cephalosporins and penicillins with beta-lactamase inhibitors. Their empiric usefulness, however, partially depends on the type of DFS (ischemic or nonischemic). This relationship is particularly pronounced in the case of amoxicillin with clavulanate, 1st-generation cephalosporins, and glyco- and lipopeptides (more useful in the neuropathic DFS), as well as ceftazidime, aztreonam, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, and colistin (more useful in DFS). The differences in the utility of antibacterial agents in particular types of DFS are presented in Table 5. Noteworthily, low sensitivity of bacterial strains to metronidazole, macrolides, and clindamycin was found in all patients.


Antibacterial agentSusceptibility in all patientsSusceptibility in patients with PADSusceptibility in patients without PADStatistical significance,

Penicillins and penicillins with beta-lactamase inhibitor
Penicillin G23%20%28%
Ampicillin27%26%30%
Amoxicillin26%25%30%
Amoxicillin with clavulanate53%51%61%
Piperacillin with tazobactam57%57%59%
Cephalosporins
Cephalexin26%24%31%
Cephadroxyl
Cefazolin
Cefaclor
Cefuroxime35%33%39%
Ceftazidime30%33%24%
Cefotaxime48%47%50%
Ceftriaxone49%47%51%
Cefixime31%32%27%
Ceftybuten30%32%27%
Cefepime62%62%64%
Ceftalozane37%39%32%
Ceftaroline58%56%64%
Monobactams
Aztreonam29%31%22%
Carbapenems
Meropenem82%83%80%
Imipenem with cilastatin79%80%76%
Ertapenem79%79%81%
Glycopeptides
Vancomycin50%46%58%
Teicoplanin50%46%59%
Dalbavancin50%47%59%
Lipopeptides
Daptomycin48%45%57%
Aminoglycosides
Gentamicin65%67%63%
Amikacin65%66%65%
Tobramycin68%68%69%
Tetracyclines
Doxycycline40%38%44%
Glycylcycline
Tigecycline75%53%80%
Macrolides
Erythromycin9%9%11%
Clarithromycin9%8%10%
Azithromycin
Lincosamides
Clindamycin24%22%28%
Oxazolidinones
Linezolid47%43%56%
Fluoroquinolones
Ciprofloxacin35%36%29%
Levofloxacin37%39%29%
Moxifloxacin31%34%24%
Sulfonamides
Cotrimoxazole45%45%46%
Nitroimidazoles
Metronidazole4%5%2%
Polymyxins
Colistin34%38%26%

Patients included in the study were hospitalized, and according to the current guidelines in such circumstance, the empiric treatment should consist of at least two antibacterial agents. The most common treatment regimens cited in the literature and their usefulness in patients with ischemic and nonischemic DFS were analyzed (Table 6). The combination of amoxicillin/clavulanate with vancomycin turned out to be less useful by almost half in people with nonischemic DFS than in patients with coexistent PAD (a similar relationship was also observed for piperacillin/tazobactam and vancomycin); the opposite correlation was found for the combination of carbapenems with vancomycin. Fluoroquinolones together with clindamycin, ceftazidime, and metronidazole showed unacceptably low utility, and the treatment regimen based on ceftazidime with clindamycin was only suitable in 52%.


Antibacterial agentsSusceptibility in all patientsSusceptibility in patients with PADSusceptibility in patients without PADStatistical significance,

Ciprofloxacin with clindamycin46%45%46%
Levofloxacin with clindamycin44%45%40%
Amoxicillin/clavulanate with vancomycin62%58%70%
Piperacillin/tazobactam with vancomycin87%85%94%
Imipenem with vancomycin88%89%85%
Meropenem with vancomycin91%91%89%
Amoxicillin/clavulanate with cotrimoxazole73%71%79%
Ceftazidime with metronidazole33%36%24%
Ceftazidime with clindamycin52%53%49%
Ciprofloxacin with linezolid64%61%69%
Moxifloxacin with linezolid59%58%63%

An attempt was made to establish acceptable and applicable regimens of empiric antibiotic therapy, excluding antibiotics with serious side effects (e.g., colistin and vancomycin), used only in the case of resistance to other drugs and after receiving the results of microbiological culture (e.g., carbapenems) and expensive, hardly available antibiotics (e.g., 4th- and 5th-generation cephalosporins, linezolid, and tigecycline). The results of the analysis are presented in Table 6.

4. Discussion

As in our previous study [7], Gram-positive and Gram-negative strains were isolated with almost the same frequency. It is considered that infections with Gram-positive bacteria are more common in Western communities, whilst Gram-negative bacteria are more common in Eastern communities [8]. However, this explanation seems to be unsatisfactory with respect to the high percentage of Gram-negative bacteria observed in our group. A possible explanation is that the analyzed population included hospitalized patients, previously treated in various hospital wards, with more severe infection involving more than one bacterial strain, commonly with coexistent PAD. Because the Department of Angiology is a part of the general health system, the study group most probably represents the population of hospitalized patients in general.

Despite a similar distribution of Gram-positive and Gram-negative species, the prevalence of particular bacteria is different compared to our study from 2014. The most common isolate in the aforementioned study had been Enterococcus faecalis (16.08%), which in the present analysis has taken the second position (11.37%), as nearly one-fourth of all infections are caused by Staphylococcus aureus that predominate in the study. Enterobacter cloacae was at third place, which may be alarming because of the high tendency of this species to produce mechanisms of antibiotic resistance [9]. Pseudomonas aeruginosa continues to be the fourth most frequently isolated pathogen among patients with DFS. The fifth most often isolated pathogen is Acinetobacter baumannii (6.40% compared to 2.01% in 2014), which is concerning due to the evidently hospital origin of this strain and its significant resistance to antibiotics [10]. Noteworthily, the low frequency of Streptococcus bacteria can partially result from a use of beta-lactam antibiotics as first-line drugs in the general population.

The common occurrence of strains resistant to antibiotics is especially problematic, as many as 20% isolates have at least one resistance mechanism, and the MDR strain accounted for 70% of isolated Acinetobacter baumannii (distribution similar to observed in other centers [11]). The resistance of one-fifth of all bacteria in the population with DFS has serious consequences for treatment effectiveness, since standard empiric with antibacterial agents cannot be successful in more than 80% of cases.

In the present analysis, the susceptibility of bacteria to antibiotics was analyzed in relation to algorithms presented in available guidelines [12, 13]. Although monotherapy with meropenem covers 82% of isolated strains, in case of other antibacterial agents, this proportion does not exceed 75% (tigecycline) and 68% (aminoglycosides). Penicillins with beta-lactamase inhibitor were suitable in more than 50% of cases, similar to cephalosporins of 4th generation and 5th generation (with exception of ceftalozane). Some 3rd-generation cephalosporins (ceftriaxone, cefotaxime) were useful in less than 50% of isolates.

The guidelines in severe infections usually recommend intravenous ciprofloxacin with clindamycin (only 46% accuracy in our study), amoxicillin/clavulanate with vancomycin (62%), piperacillin/tazobactam with vancomycin (87%), amoxicillin/clavulanate with cotrimoxazole (73%), ciprofloxacin with linezolid (64%), and moxifloxacin with linezolid (59%). In the present study, a high proportion of susceptible bacteria have been found in relation to amoxicillin/clavulanate with amikacin (83%) and ceftriaxone with amikacin (77%); more available and cheaper cefuroxime with amikacin has the accuracy of 76%. We also proved low usefulness of some groups of drugs in DFS, i.e., fluoroquinolones and macrolides. Despite the special role of clindamycin and metronidazole in anaerobic infection, their accuracy in this purpose is limited (58% for clindamycin and 54% for metronidazole), compared to amoxicillin/clavulanate (90%).

PAD is an important factor affecting prognosis in patients with DFS. Various analyses have shown different rates of PAD in people with diabetes, ranging from 49% in the EURODIALE study [14] to about 60% in analysis involving smaller populations [15]; however, some researchers postulate that this proportion may be higher [16]. In the analyzed population, the incidence of PAD was 72.02% (including patients with ischemic diabetic foot without neuropathy and mixed, ischemic-neuropathic DFS). In meta-analysis involving over 50,000 patients with DFS, the presence of PAD was associated with two times higher risk of major limb amputation [17]. Nevertheless, data on diversity of particular pathogens and their susceptibility to antibiotics in patients with diabetes and PAS is scarce.

In the present study, it was found that Gram-negative bacteria occurs about 1/4 more frequently in ischemic compared to nonischemic DFS, which may result in a different sensitivity to commonly used groups of antibacterial agents. Moreover, it was shown that bacterial strains isolated from ischemic feet are more resistant to the most commonly used groups of antibiotics, i.e., penicillins (including combinations with their inhibitors), cephalosporins (except for the 4th and 5th generations), glycopeptides, and linezolid. Although the shift towards Gram-negative bacteria is well known in the literature for extremity ischemic ulcers [18], it is uncommonly taken into consideration in the context of DFS.

We can also speculate that differences in isolate patterns between ischemic and nonischemic DFS are not only a consequence of the higher morbidity and more frequent contact with health care but also may result from different local environments of neuropathic and ischemic ulcers. Indeed, in a typical diabetic foot, the infection is driven by neuropathy and its sequelae, hyperglycemia, and probably dysfunction of the immune system [19]. Ischemia may additionally favor the development of Gram-negative bacteria (e.g., there are reports of increased invasiveness of Gram-negative bacteria, e.g., in people with anemia) [20].

There are some limitations in our analysis. Undoubtedly, the effectiveness of a given chemotherapeutic agent is determined by its clinical effect, not by the result of the antibiogram, which comprises only one possible variable. Besides drug availability and compliance, the accuracy of therapy is also determined by other factors not included in the analysis, e.g., tissue penetration of antibacterial agents. For example, it is known that vancomycin is characterized by poor tissue penetration, as opposed to aminoglycosides (moderate penetration) or cotrimoxazole (good penetration) [21]; obviously, in DFS therapy, using drugs with good penetration is preferred. Notwithstanding, the result of antibiogram is always the first step in choosing appropriate therapy and reducing the number of modalities to susceptible medications.

5. Conclusions

(1) The most common isolated bacteria in patients with DFS were Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, Enterobacter cloacae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter baumannii. In patients with PAD and DFS, Gram-negative species were isolated more commonly than in people with neuropathic DFS, whilst anaerobes were cultured equally often in both groups. In patients with PAD, E. cloacae was isolated almost twice as often as in patients without PAD

(2) Including all analyzed patients with DFS, monotherapy with meropenem covers 82% of isolated strains, but in the case of other antibacterial agents, this proportion does not exceed 75% (tigecycline) and 68% (aminoglycosides). Penicillins with beta-lactamase inhibitor were useful in more than 50% of cases, similar to cephalosporins of 4th generation and 5th generation (with exception of ceftalozane). Some 3rd-generation cephalosporins (ceftriaxone, cefotaxime) were suitable in less than 50% of isolates. Contrarily, clindamycin, metronidazole, and macrolides are definitely less useful and should not be used in the treatment of DFS

(3) Gram-negative bacteria occur about 1/4 more frequently in ischemic compared to nonischemic DFS, which may result in a different sensitivity to commonly used groups of antibacterial agents. Moreover, bacterial strains isolated from ischemic feet are more resistant to commonly used antibacterial agents, i.e., penicillins (including penicillins with beta-lactamase inhibitors), cephalosporins (except for the 4th and 5th generations), glycopeptides, and linezolid. In ischemic DFS, merely aztreonam, carbapenems, and fluoroquinolones (a high proportion of resistant strains) appear to be more useful

(4) The most potent combinations of antibacterial agents were carbapenems with vancomycin, piperacillin/tazobactam with vancomycin, ciprofloxacin with linezolid, and moxifloxacin with linezolid. The combinations of fluoroquinolones with clindamycin or ceftazidime with metronidazole showed unacceptably low efficacy. The therapy based on ceftazidime with clindamycin was accurate only in half of the isolates

Data Availability

Data available on request; please contact Rafał Małecki, e-mail: rafal.malecki@umed.wroc.pl.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. P. Zhang, J. Lu, Y. Jing, S. Tang, D. Zhu, and Y. Bi, “Global epidemiology of diabetic foot ulceration: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Annals of Medicine, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 106–116, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. D. F. Bandyk, “The diabetic foot: pathophysiology, evaluation, and treatment,” Seminars in Vascular Surgery, vol. 31, no. 2-4, pp. 43–48, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. B. A. Lipsky, A. R. Berendt, P. B. Cornia et al., “2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infectionsa,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, vol. 54, no. 12, pp. e132–e173, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. J. Vandepitte, K. Engbaek, P. Rohner, P. Piot, and C. C. Heuck, Basic Laboratory Procedures in Clinical Bacteriology, World Health Organization, Geneva, 2nd edition, 2003.
  5. R. Pop-Busui, A. J. Boulton, E. L. Feldman et al., “Diabetic neuropathy: a position statement by the American Diabetes Association,” Diabetes Care, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 136–154, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. V. Aboyans, J. B. Ricco, M. L. E. L. Bartelink et al., “2017 ESC guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of peripheral arterial diseases, in collaboration with the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS),” European heart journal, vol. 39, no. 9, pp. 763–816, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. R. Małecki, K. Rosiński, and R. Adamiec, “Etiological factors of infections in diabetic foot syndrome - attempt to define optimal empirical therapy,” Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 39–48, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. P. Shanmugam, “The bacteriology of diabetic foot ulcers, with a special reference to multidrug resistant strains,” Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, vol. 7, pp. 441–445, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. M. L. Mezzatesta, F. Gona, and S. Stefani, “Enterobacter cloacae complex: clinical impact and emerging antibiotic resistance,” Future Microbiology, vol. 7, no. 7, pp. 887–902, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. C. R. Lee, J. H. Lee, M. Park et al., “Biology of Acinetobacter baumannii: pathogenesis, antibiotic resistance mechanisms, and prospective treatment options,” Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, vol. 7, p. 55, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. A. Y. Peleg, H. Seifert, and D. L. Paterson, “Acinetobacter baumannii: emergence of a successful pathogen,” Clinical Microbiology Reviews, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 538–582, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. B. A. Lipsky, É. Senneville, Z. G. Abbas et al., “Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of foot infection in persons with diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update),” Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews, vol. 36, no. S1, article e3280, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. American Diabetes Association, “11. Microvascular complications and foot Care:Standards of medical care in diabetes-2020,” Diabetes Care, vol. 43, Supplement 1, pp. S135–S151, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. L. Prompers, M. Huijberts, J. Apelqvist et al., “High prevalence of ischaemia, infection and serious comorbidity in patients with diabetic foot disease in Europe. Baseline results from the Eurodiale study,” Diabetologia, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 18–25, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. M. R. Khammash and K. A. Obeidat, “Prevalence of ischemia in diabetic foot infection,” World Journal of Surgery, vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 797–799, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. M. Weck, T. Slesaczeck, H. Rietzsch et al., “Noninvasive management of the diabetic foot with critical limb ischemia: current options and future perspectives,” Therapeutic Advances in Endocrinology and Metabolism, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 247–255, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. J. Y. Shin, S. G. Roh, B. Sharaf, and N. H. Lee, “Risk of major limb amputation in diabetic foot ulcer and accompanying disease: a meta-analysis,” Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, vol. 70, no. 12, pp. 1681–1688, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. F. Jockenhöfer, V. Chapot, M. Stoffels- Weindorf et al., “Bacterial spectrum colonizing chronic leg ulcers: a 10-year comparison from a German wound care center,” JDDG: Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft, vol. 12, no. 12, pp. 1121–1127, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. M. Delamaire, D. Maugendre, M. Moreno, M. C. Le Goff, H. Allannic, and B. Genetet, “Impaired leucocyte functions in diabetic patients,” Diabetic Medicine, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 29–34, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. K. M. Abuga, J. M. Muriuki, T. N. Williams, and S. H. Atkinson, “How severe anaemia might influence the risk of invasive bacterial infections in African children,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 21, no. 18, p. 6976, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. N. G. L. Jager, R. M. van Hest, J. Lipman, J. A. Roberts, and M. O. Cotta, “Antibiotic exposure at the site of infection: principles and assessment of tissue penetration,” Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 623–634, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2021 Rafał Małecki et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Related articles

No related content is available yet for this article.
 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views410
Downloads476
Citations

Related articles

No related content is available yet for this article.

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2021, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.