| Literature DB >> 30175153 |
Mingxia Wu1, Hang Pan1, Weiling Leng1, Xiaotian Lei1, Liu Chen1, Ziwen Liang1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the microbial distribution and drug susceptibility among diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) with different Wagner grades and between acute and chronic DFUs. Methods. We enrolled 428 DFU patients who were hospitalized and treated in the Southwest Hospital. We collected deep ulcer secretion for microbial culture and drug susceptibility tests and analyzed the results. We reexamined 67 patients with poor anti-infection efficacy and analyzed microbial species.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30175153 PMCID: PMC6098928 DOI: 10.1155/2018/9817308
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Diabetes Res Impact factor: 4.011
Clinical and demographical variables.
| Parameter | Values | Values (range or |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 273 (63.8) |
| Female | 155 (36.2) | |
| Age | <40 years | 4 (0.9) |
| 40–50 years | 39 (9.1) | |
| 50–60 years | 93 (21.7) | |
| 60–70 years | 122 (28.5) | |
| >70 years | 170 (39.8) | |
|
| ||
| Hospital stays (days) | Wagner grade 1 | 11.5 ± 6.1 |
| Wagner grade 2 | 19.3 ± 14.9 | |
| Wagner grade 3 | 22.1 ± 17.4 | |
| Wagner grade4 | 21.0 ± 17.3 | |
| Wagner grade 5 | 22.3 ± 13.4 | |
| Duration of ulcer ≤ 4 weeks | 17.6 ± 12.6 | |
| Duration of ulcer > 4 weeks | 21.8 ± 17.8 | |
|
| ||
| Complication | Vascular diseases | 354 (82.7) |
| Neuropathy | 346 (80.8) | |
| Nephropathy | 180 (42.1) | |
| Retinopathy | 200 (46.7) | |
|
| ||
| HbA1c (%) | ≤7% (good control) | 90 (23.2) |
| 7.1–8% (fair control) | 59 (15.2) | |
| 8.1–10% (poor control) | 109 (28.1) | |
| >10% (very poor control) | 130 (33.5) | |
The distribution of pathogenic bacteria was detected in DFI with different wagner grades.
| Before antibiotic therapy, | After antibiotic therapy, | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wagner grading | |||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total | ||
| Total samples | 36 (8.4) | 114 (26.6) | 155 (36.2) | 105 (24.5) | 18 (4.3) | 428 | 67 |
| Positive samples | 20 (55.6) | 101 (88.6) | 119 (76.8) | 98 (93.3) | 16 (88.9) | 354 (82.7) | 35 (52.2) |
| Total strains | 28 | 156 | 176 | 165 | 30 | 555 | 45 |
| Monomicrobial infection | 17 (47.2) | 59 (58.4) | 73 (61.3) | 46 (46.9) | 7 (38.9) | 201 (56.8) | 24 (68.6) |
| Polymicrobial infection | 4 (11.1) | 42 (41.6) | 46 (38.7) | 52 (53.1) | 9 (61.1) | 153 (43.2) | 11 (31.4) |
| MDR | 7 (3.8) | 50 (27.5) | 59 (32.4) | 58 (31.9) | 8 (4.4) | 182 (32.8) | 20 (57.4) |
| Gram-positive bacteria | 18 (64.3) | 73 (46.8) | 62 (35.2) | 45 (27.3) | 7 (23.3) | 205 (36.9) | 5 (11.1) |
|
| 11 (61.1) | 29 (39.7) | 29 (46.8) | 15 (33.3) | 1 (14.3) | 85 (41.5) | 4 (80.0) |
| Other | 6 (33.3) | 26 (35.6) | 7 (11.3) | 9 (20.0) | 1 (14.3) | 49 (23.9) | 1 (20.0) |
| MRSA | 1 (5.9) | 5 (29.4) | 8 (47.1) | 3 (17.6) | 0 (0) | 17 | 4 |
| MRS | 2 (6.5) | 17 (54.8) | 2 (6.5) | 9 (29.0) | 1 (3.2) | 31 | 0 |
|
| 1 (5.6) | 6 (3.8) | 13 (21.0) | 6 (13.3) | 3 (42.9) | 29 (14.1) | 0 |
|
| 0 (0) | 10 (8.2) | 11 (17.7) | 13 (28.9) | 2 (28.6) | 36 (17.6) | 0 |
| Gram-negative bacteria | 9 (32.1) | 68 (43.6) | 91 (51.7) | 96 (58.2) | 19 (63.3) | 283 (51.0) | 31 (68.9) |
|
| 1 (11.1) | 4 (5.9) | 17 (18.7) | 10 (10.4) | 1 (5.3) | 33 (11.7) | 6 (19.4) |
|
| 1 (11.1) | 10 (14.7) | 12 (13.2) | 9 (9.4) | 3 (15.8) | 35 (12.4) | 4 (12.9) |
| Product ESBL | 2 (6.7) | 3 (10.0) | 12 (40.0) | 11 (36.6) | 2 (6.7) | 30 | 5 |
|
| 1 (11.1) | 5 (7.4) | 5 (5.5) | 11 (11.5) | 1 (5.3) | 23 (8.1) | 1 (3.2) |
|
| 0 (0) | 2 (2.9) | 11 (12.1) | 13 (13.5) | 6 (31.6) | 32 (11.3) | 5 (16.1) |
|
| 0 (0) | 2 (2.9) | 6 (6.6) | 3 (3.1) | 1 (5.3) | 12 (4.2) | 0 |
|
| 1 (22.2) | 2 (2.9) | 5 (5.5) | 10 (10.4) | 1 (5.3) | 19 (6.7) | 1 (3.2) |
|
| 2 (22.2) | 8 (11.8) | 9 (9.9) | 17 (17.7) | 3 (15.8) | 39 (13.8) | 6 (19.4) |
|
| 1 (11.1) | 5 (7.4) | 3 (3.3) | 6 (6.3) | 0 (0) | 15 (5.3) | 1 (3.2) |
|
| 1 (11.1) | 6 (8.8) | 12 (13.2) | 7 (7.3) | 0 (0) | 26 (9.2) | 2 (6.4) |
| Fungus | 1 (3.6) | 15 (9.6) | 23 (13.1) | 24 (14.5) | 4 (13.3) | 67 (12.1) | 9 (20.0) |
Figure 1The distribution of pathogenic bacteria was detected in DFI with different duration of ulcer.
Figure 2The susceptible pattern of MRS from diabetic foot patients.
The susceptible pattern of gram-positive bacteria from diabetic foot patients.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total strains | 85 | 14 | 13 | 29 | 5 | 31 |
| Sulfamethoxazole (%) | 81.2 | 21.4 | 38.5 | — | — | — |
| Oxacillin (%) | 78.9 | 0 | 23.1 | — | — | — |
| Ampicillin (%) | — | — | — | 100 | 20 | — |
| Benzylpenicillin (%) | 5.9 | 0 | 0 | 96.2 | — | — |
| Macrodantin (%) | 98.8 | 100 | 100 | 88.9 | 0 | — |
| Moxifloxacin (%) | 95.3 | 57.1 | 84.6 | 69.6 | 0 | — |
| Levofloxacin (%) | 82.4 | 0 | 38.5 | 69.2 | 20 | 80.6 |
| Ciprofloxacin (%) | 81.2 | 0 | 23.1 | 57.1 | 0 | — |
| Quinupristin/dalfotristin (%) | 100 | 100 | 100 | 5 | 100 | — |
| Vancomycin (%) | 100 | 100 | 92.3 | 96.6 | 100 | 100 |
| Tetracycline (%) | 75.3 | 78.6 | 46.2 | 10.7 | 40 | — |
| Rifampicin (%) | 98.8 | 100 | 100 | — | — | — |
| Gentamicin (%) | 82.4 | 28.6 | 61.5 | — | — | — |
| Erythrocin (%) | 48.2 | 7.1 | 23.1 | — | 20 | 21 |
| Clindamycin (%) | 60 | 20 | 15.4 | 5.6 | 0 | 25.8 |
| Linezolid (%) | 100 | 100 | 100 | 86.2 | 100 | 100 |
| Tigecycline (%) | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | — |
The susceptible pattern of gram-negative bacteria from diabetic foot patients.
|
|
|
|
| Proteusbacillus |
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Macrodantin (%) | 79.3 | 10 | 35.1 | 55.6 | — | 2.6 | 14.3 | 0 |
| Ampicillin (%) | 21.9 | — | 5.4 | 0 | 55.6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ampicillin/sulbactam (%) | 25.8 | — | 48.6 | 0 | 73.7 | 5.9 | 50 | 0 |
| Piperacillin-tazobactam (%) | 87.9 | 100 | 94.6 | 84.2 | 100 | 74.4 | 80 | 96 |
| Sulfamethoxazole (%) | 31.3 | 94.7 | 67.6 | 61.9 | 52.6 | 5.3 | 64.3 | 40 |
| Cefazolin (%) | 22.2 | 5.3 | 27 | 18.8 | — | 0 | 0 | 3.8 |
| Cefoxitin (%) | — | — | — | — | 100 | — | — | — |
| Ceftriaxone (%) | 32.3 | 100 | 70.3 | 71.4 | — | 0 | 0 | 76.9 |
| Ceftazidime (%) | 62.5 | 100 | 89.2 | 81 | 100 | 87.2 | 66.7 | 88.5 |
| Cefotetan (%) | 90 | — | 94.6 | 9.1 | — | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Cefepime (%) | 66.7 | 94.7 | 94.6 | 90.5 | 73.7 | 89.7 | 71.4 | 90.5 |
| Levofloxacin (%) | 39.4 | 94.7 | 83.8 | 75 | 73.7 | 89.5 | 73.3 | 92.3 |
| Ciprofloxacin (%) | 30.3 | 94.7 | 81.1 | 70 | 57.9 | 87.2 | 73.3 | 65.4 |
| Amikacin (%) | 46.9 | 78.9 | 75.7 | 76.2 | 63.2 | 87.2 | 93.3 | 53.8 |
| Tobramycin (%) | 97 | 100 | 94.6 | 93.3 | 88.9 | 89.5 | — | 88.5 |
| Gentamicin (%) | 46.9 | 94.7 | 78.4 | 95.2 | 68.4 | 84.6 | 93.3 | 53.8 |
| Meropenem (%) | — | — | — | — | 100 | 94.3 | — | 100 |
| Imipenem (%) | 93.5 | 89.5 | 100 | 100 | 68.4 | 82.1 | 73.3 | — |
| Ertapenem (%) | 96.4 | 100 | 100 | 94.7 | 100 | — | — | 100 |
| Aztreonam (%) | 48.5 | 84.2 | 83.8 | 76.2 | 84.2 | — | 22.2 | 100 |
Figure 3The susceptible pattern of product ESBL bacteria from diabetic foot patients.
Figure 4The susceptible pattern of Fungus from diabetic foot patients.