| Literature DB >> 35402307 |
Hadar Mudrik-Zohar1,2, Shaqed Carasso3, Tal Gefen3, Anat Zalmanovich2,4, Michal Katzir2,4, Yael Cohen5, Yossi Paitan2,6, Naama Geva-Zatorsky3,7, Michal Chowers2,4.
Abstract
Background: Infected diabetic foot ulcers (IDFU) are a major complication of diabetes mellitus. These potentially limb-threatening ulcers are challenging to treat due to impaired wound healing characterizing diabetic patients and the complex microbial environment of these ulcers. Aim: To analyze the microbiome of IDFU in association with clinical outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: 16S rRNA; amputation; diabetic foot ulcer; metagenomics; microbiome
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35402307 PMCID: PMC8987016 DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.836699
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cell Infect Microbiol ISSN: 2235-2988 Impact factor: 5.293
Figure 1Study design. Created with BioRender.com.
Patient characteristics at enrolment and clinical outcomes measured.
| Characteristic | Total (N=31) | Amputation (N=23) | Conservative treatment (N=8) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years, mean (± SD) | 62 ( ± 13.3) | 61 ( ± 12.9) | 64 ( ± 15.2) | 0.65 |
| Men, N (%) | 25 (81) | 18 (78) | 7 (87) | 0.50 |
| Ulcer location | ||||
| Forefoot ulcers (number of toes involved | 0.34 | |||
| 1 toe | 25 (81) | 18 (78) | 7 (87) | |
| >1 toe | 5 (16) | 4 (17) | 1 (13) | |
| Hindfoot ulcers | 1 (3) | 1 (4) | 0 (0) | |
| Ulcer size, N (%) | 0.50 | |||
| <3cm | 25 (81) | 18 (78) | 7 (88) | |
| 3-10cm | 6 (19) | 5 (22) | 1 (13) | |
| Infection clinical evaluation, N (%) | ||||
| Cellulitis | 13 (42) | 11(48) | 2 (25) | 0.24 |
| Osteomyelitis (OM) | 29 (94) | 21 (91) | 8 (100) | 0.54 |
| Abscess | 1 (3) | 1 (4) | 0 (0) | 0.74 |
| X-ray positive for OM, N (%) | 21 (68) | 15 (65) | 6 (75) | 0.48 |
| Texas classification | ||||
| Stage B | 17 (54) | 12 (52) | 5 (62) | 0.70 |
| Stage D | 14 (45) | 11(48) | 3 (37) | |
| Grade 3 IWGDF/IDSA System classification | 29 (93) | 21 (91) | 8 (100) | 0.60 |
| PEDIS 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.21 |
| PEDIS 3 | 15 | 9 | 6 | |
| PEDIS 4 | 15 | 13 | 2 | |
| C-Reactive protein (mg/L) at admission, mean (± SD) | 12 ( ± 9.3) | 13 ( ± 8.9) | 7 ( ± 9.5) | 0.11 |
| WBC (k/uL) at admission, mean (± SD) | 12 ( ± 4.5) | 13 ( ± 4.8) | 10 ( ± 2.8) | 0.14 |
| Hemoglobin at admission (g/dL), mean (± SD) | 11.3 | 11.04 | 11.38 | 0.77 |
| Albumin at admission (g/dL), mean (± SD) | 3.28 | 3.27 | 3.47 | 0.054 |
| Antibiotic exposure within 30 days pre-admission, N (%) | ||||
| No exposure | 19 (61) | 13 (56) | 6 (75) | 0.43 |
| Antibiotic prescriptions | 12 (39) | 10 (43) | 2 (25) | 0.57 |
| Anaerobic coverage | 9 (29) | 7 (30) | 2 (25) | |
| Previous toe amputation, N (%) | 12 (39) | 8 (35) | 4 (50) | 0.36 |
| Co-morbidities, N (%) | ||||
| Essential hypertension | 21 (68) | 15 (65) | 6 (75) | 0.48 |
| Peripheral vascular disease | 11 (35) | 10 (43) | 1 (12) | 0.12 |
| Neuropathy | 30 (97) | 23 (100) | 7 (88) | 0.80 |
| Dyslipidemia | 19 (61) | 12 (52) | 7 (88) | 0.09 |
| Congestive heart failure | 9 (29) | 6 (26) | 3 (38) | 0.42 |
| Ischemic heart disease | 8 (26) | 6 (26) | 2 (25) | 0.67 |
| Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation | 4 (13) | 3 (13) | 1 (12) | 0.73 |
| Cerebrovascular disease | 7 (23) | 7 (30) | 0 (0) | 0.09 |
| Chronic kidney disease | 3 (10) | 1 (4) | 2 (25) | 0.16 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease | 1 (3) | 1 (4) | 0 (0) | 0.74 |
| Smoking | ||||
| Smoker | 7 (23) | 5 (22) | 2 (25) | 0.45 |
| Past smoker | 3 (10) | 2 (9) | 1 (12) | 0.45 |
| Recent glycosylated hemoglobin, mean (± SD) | 8.8 ( ± 2) | 8.8 ( ± 2) | 9.0 ( ± 2) | 0.72 |
| Charlson Comorbidity Index | 0.86 | |||
| 0-3 | 6 (19) | 5 (24) | 1 (10) | |
| 4-5 | 6 (19) | 4 (17) | 2 (25) | |
| >6 | 19 (61) | 12 (52) | 7 (88) | |
| Outcomes measured | ||||
| Hospitalization duration, mean (± SD) | 14 ( ± 11) | 15 ( ± 12) | 10 ( ± 9) | 0.31 |
| Days of antibiotic therapy, mean (± SD) | 13 ( ± 11) | 13 ( ± 11) | 14 ( ± 14) | 0.54 |
| Rec admission N (%) | 8 (26) | 6 (26) | 2 (25) | 0.95 |
Peripheral vascular assessments are provided in in the .
Charlson Comorbidity Index score: 0-3 = 77%-98% 10-year survival rate, 4-5 = 21-53% and >6 = 0-2%.
Overview of traditional cultures, 16S rRNA sequencing and metagenomic sequencing results.
| Total (N=31) | Amputation (N=23) | Conservative treatment (N=8) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Patients with positive culture results, N (%) | 30 (97) | 22 (96) | 8 (100) | 0.79 |
| Number of bacteria per patient, mean (± SD) | 4.0 ( ± 1.8) | 4.4 ( ± 2.7) | 3.8 ( ± 1.5) | 0.45 |
| Gram stain, mean (± SD) | ||||
| Gram-positive bacteria | 1.9 ( ± 1.2) | 1.8 ( ± 1.1) | 2.2 ( ± 1.6) | 0.37 |
| Gram-negative bacteria | 2.2 ( ± 1.4) | 2.3 ( ± 1.3) | 1.9 ( ± 1.8) | 0.52 |
| Oxygen requirements, mean (± SD) | ||||
| Aerobic bacteria | 0.6 ( ± 0.7) | 0.7 ( ± 0.7) | 0.5 ( ± 0.5) | 0.48 |
| Anaerobic bacteria | 0.7 ( ± 0.9) | 0.6 ( ± 0.6) | 1.0 ( ± 1.4) | 0.35 |
| Facultative anaerobic bacteria | 2.7 ( ± 1.6) | 2.7 ( ± 1.6) | 2.6 ( ± 1.8) | 0.92 |
| 5 most prevalent species – occurrences, N (%) | ||||
| | 10 (33) | 5 (23) | 5 (63) | 0.048 |
| | 9 (30) | 7 (32) | 2 (25) | 0.57 |
| | 8 (26) | 6 (27) | 2(25) | 0.14 |
| | 7 (23) | 3 (14) | 4 (50) | 0.053 |
| | 6 (20) | 5 (23) | 1 (12) | 0.50 |
| Resistance mechanisms, N (%) | ||||
| Any resistance | 13 (43) | 11 (50) | 2 (25) | 0.24 |
| AMP-C | 9 (30) | 9 (41) | 0 (0) | 0.041 |
| ESBL | 1 (3) | 1 (4) | 0 (0) | 0.74 |
| MRSA | 3 (10) | 2 (9) | 1 (12) | 0.60 |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa MDR | 1 (3) | 1 (4) | 0 (0) | 0.74 |
| Carbapenem resistant Enterobacteriaceae | 2 (7) | 1 (4) | 1 (12) | 0.46 |
|
| ||||
| Patients with high quality results, N (%) | 30 (97) | 22 (96) | 8 (100) | 0.79 |
| Number of genera per patient*, mean (± SD) | 26.9 ( ± 12.9) | 28.5 ( ± 11.8) | 22 ( ± 12) | 0.19 |
| Gram stain, mean (± SD) | ||||
| Gram-positive bacteria | 10.7 ( ± 5.3) | 11.4 ( ± 5.3) | 8.5 ( ± 5.3) | 0.20 |
| Gram-negative bacteria | 16.2 ( ± 7.4) | 17.0 ( ± 7.5) | 13.9 ( ± 7.1) | 0.30 |
| Oxygen requirements, mean (± SD) | ||||
| Aerobic bacteria | 5.1 ( ± 5.0) | 5.1 ( ± 5.0) | 5.1 ( ± 5.0) | 0.99 |
| Anaerobic bacteria | 15.1 ( ± 8.7) | 16.4 ( ± 8.4) | 11.4 ( ± 8.7) | 0.18 |
| Facultative anaerobic bacteria, mean | 6.7 ( ± 3.2) | 7.0 ( ± 3.1) | 5.9 ( ± 3.1) | 0.47 |
| 5 most prevalent genera – occurrences, N (%) | ||||
| | 28 (93) | 21 (70) | 7 (23) | |
| | 22 (73) | 18 (60) | 4 (13) | |
| | 21 (70) | 19 (63) | 2 (7) | |
| | 20 (67) | 14 (47) | 6 (20) | |
| | 18 (60) | 14 (47) | 4 (13) | |
|
| ||||
| Patients with high quality results, N (%) | 13 (42) | 10 (43) | 3 (37) | 0.80 |
| Number of species | 26.1 (7.9) | 26.8 (7.6) | 23.7 (10.0) | 0.47 |
| Gram stain, mean (± SD) | ||||
| Gram-positive bacteria | 5.4 (3.1) | 5.2 (3.5) | 6.0 (1.7) | 0.81 |
| Gram-negative bacteria | 20.6 (8.1) | 21.5 (7.9) | 17.7 (9.6) | 0.47 |
| Oxygen requirements, mean (± SD) | ||||
| Aerobic bacteria | 1.5 (1.0) | 1.5 (1.2) | 1.3 (0.6) | 0.94 |
| Anaerobic bacteria | 19.8 (6.8) | 20.8 (6.2) | 16.3 (9.0) | 0.31 |
| Facultative anaerobic bacteria | 4.5 (2.4) | 4.1 (2.1) | 5.7 (3.2) | 0.29 |
| 5 most prevalent species – occurrence, N (%) | ||||
| | 13 (100) | 10 (77) | 3 (23) | |
| | 11 (85) | 9 (69) | 2 (16) | |
| | 10 (77) | 8 (61) | 2 (16) | |
| | 9 (69) | 7 (53) | 2 (16) | |
| | 8 (61) | 7 (53) | 1 (8) | |
Taxonomic data were subsequently filtered by a minimum of 0.1% relative abundance and detection in at least 3 samples.
Figure 2(A–D). Comparison of Gram staining characteristics and oxygen requirements of isolated and sequenced bacteria as reflected by traditional cultures, 16S rRNA and metagenomic sequencing. Numbers represent percentages (%); (A, B) Traditional cultures vs. 16S rRNA sequencing results (N=30): Gram staining, p=0.07; oxygen requirements (anaerobes and facultative anaerobes, p<0.001). (C, D) Traditional cultures, 16S rRNA sequencing and metagenomic sequencing results (N=13): Gram staining, p=0.01; oxygen requirements (anaerobes, p<0.001; facultative anaerobes, p=0.001).
Figure 3(A–E). Occurrences of the most prevalent bacteria among the investigated IDFU. (A, B) Cultures results (genera and species level – N=30). (C) 16S rRNA sequencing results (genera level – N=30). (D, E) Metagenomic sequencing results (genera and species level – N=13).
Figure 4Association between Bacteroides genus and amputation according to 16S rRNA sequencing and metagenomic sequencing. Bacteroides genus, p<0.001; Bacteroides fragilis, p=0.04; Bacteroides xylanisolvens, p=0.002.
Figure 5(A, B). Associations between certain genera and species and ulcer size. (A) Beta diversity (Bray-Curtis dissimilarity index) of samples from patients with different ulcer sizes: PCoA plot of taxonomic features shows the clustering of samples according to ulcer sizes. Ellipsoids represent a 95% confidence interval surrounding each group. p<0.01 (PERMANOVA). (B) 16S rRNA results analysis: Shown are genera that were more common in ulcers smaller than 3cm, compared with ulcers 3-10cm, p<0.001.
Figure 6(A, B). Analysis of functional genes. Yellow stars indicate genes related to bacterial virulence factors. (A) A cluster of five samples of patients with IDFU who underwent amputation. These patients had more severe peripheral vascular disease compared to other patients, p=0.003. (B) Functional genes differentiating patients who underwent amputation from patients who were treated conservatively.