Consult the medical resource doctors trust

UpToDate is one of the most respected medical information resources in the world, used by over 360,000 doctors and thousands of patients to find answers to medical questions.

  • Content written by a faculty of over 4,000 physicians from leading medical institutions
  • Unbiased: free of advertising or pharmaceutical funding
  • Evidence-based treatment recommendations
  • Continuously updated to incorporate new medical findings

Overview of diabetic infections of the lower extremities

INTRODUCTION

Diabetic foot infections are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality [1]. Important factors for development of diabetic foot infections include neuropathy, peripheral vascular disease, and hyperglycemia. In the setting of sensory neuropathy there is diminished perception of pain and temperature, so delays in injury presentation are common. Autonomic neuropathy can cause diminished sweat secretion resulting in dry, cracked skin, facilitating microorganism entry, while motor neuropathy can lead to foot deformities. Peripheral arterial disease can lead to impaired blood supply needed for healing of ulcers and infections. Hyperglycemia impairs neutrophil function and reduces host defenses. Trauma in patients with one or more of these risk factors precipitates development of wounds that can be slow to heal and predispose to secondary infection.

The microbiology, clinical evaluation, diagnosis and management of diabetic foot infections will be reviewed here. The general evaluation of the diabetic foot and management of uninfected diabetic foot lesions are discussed separately. (See "Management of diabetic foot lesions" and "Evaluation of the diabetic foot".)

MICROBIOLOGY

Most diabetic foot infections are polymicrobial, with up to five or seven different specific organisms involved. The microbiology of diabetic foot wounds is variable depending on the extent of involvement [2-5]:

  • Superficial diabetic foot infections (including cellulitis and infected ulcers in antibiotic naïve individuals) are likely to be due to aerobic gram-positive cocci (including S. aureus, S. agalactiae, S. pyogenes, and coagulase-negative staphylococci). Methicillin-resistant S. aureus should be presumed and empiric antibiotic treatment should include activity against this organism, particularly for patients who are severely ill at the time of presentation.
  • Ulcers that are deep, chronically infected, and/or previously treated with antibiotics are more likely to be polymicrobial. Such wounds may involve the above organisms in addition to enterococci, Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and anaerobes.
  • Wounds with extensive local inflammation, necrosis, or gangrene with signs of systemic toxicity should be presumed to have anaerobic organisms in addition to the above pathogens. Potential pathogens include anaerobic streptococci, Bacteroides species, and Clostridium species [6-10].

It is also important to note that diabetic patients with chronic foot wounds who receive repeated and prolonged courses of antibiotics represent an important risk group for development of vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus infections. (See "Vancomycin-intermediate and vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections".)

To continue reading this article you need to subscribe.

Read the rest of this article and others like it

The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use (click here) ©2009 UpToDate, Inc.
References Top
  1. Caputo, GM, Cavanagh, PR, Ulbrecht, JS, et al. Assessment and management of foot disease in patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med 1994; 331:854.
  2. Karchmer, AW, Gibbons, GW. Foot infections in diabetes: evaluation and management. Curr Clin Top Infect Dis 1994; 14:1.
  3. Embil, JM, Trepman, E. Microbiological evaluation of diabetic foot osteomyelitis. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 42:63.
  4. Lipsky, BA, Berendt, AR, Deery, HG, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39:885.
  5. Wheat, LJ, Allen, SD, Henry, M, et al. Diabetic foot infections. Bacteriologic analysis. Arch Intern Med 1986; 146:1935.
  6. Sapico, FL, Witte, JL, Canawati, HN, et al. The infected foot of the diabetic patient: quantitative microbiology and analysis of clinical features. Rev Infect Dis 1984; 6 Suppl 1:S171.
  7. Lipsky, BA, Pecoraro, RE, Larson, SA, et al. Outpatient management of uncomplicated lower-extremity infections in diabetic patients. Arch Intern Med 1990; 150:790.
  8. Joseph, WS, Axler, DA. Microbiology and antimicrobial therapy of diabetic foot infections. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 1990; 7:467.
  9. Urbancic-Rovan, V, Gubina, M. Bacteria in superficial diabetic foot ulcers. Diabet Med 2000; 17:814.
  10. Sims, D, Keating, SE, DeVincentis, AF. Bacteriology of diabetic foot ulcers. J Foot Surg 1984; 23:149.
  11. Senneville, E, Melliez, H, Beltrand, E, 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.
  12. Jeffcoate, WJ, Harding, KG. Diabetic foot ulcers. Lancet 2003; 361:1545.
  13. Lavery, LA, Armstrong, DG, Murdoch, DP, et al. Validation of the Infectious Diseases Society of America's Diabetic Foot Infection Classification System. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 44:562.
  14. Jeandrot, A, Richard, JL, Combescure, C, et al. Serum procalcitonin and C-reactive protein concentrations to distinguish mildly infected from non-infected diabetic foot ulcers: a pilot study. Diabetologia 2008; 51:347.
  15. Uzun, G, Solmazgul, E, Curuksulu, H, et al. Procalcitonin as a diagnostic aid in diabetic foot infections. Tohoku J Exp Med 2007; 213:305.
  16. Perry, CR, Pearson, RL, Miller, GA. Accuracy of cultures of material from swabbing of the superficial aspect of the wound and needle biopsy in the preoperative assessment of osteomyelitis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991; 73:745.
  17. Mackowiak, PA, Jones, SR, Smith, JW. Diagnostic value of sinus tract cultures in chronic osteomyelitis. JAMA 1978; 239:2772.
  18. Khatri, G, Wagner, DK, Sohnle, PG. Effect of bone biopsy in guiding antimicrobial therapy for osteomyelitis complicating open wounds. Am J Med Sci 2001; 321:367.
  19. Zuluaga, AF, Galvis, W, Jaimes, F, Vesga, O. Lack of microbiological concordance between bone and non-bone specimens in chronic osteomyelitis: an observational study. BMC Infect Dis 2002; 2:8.
  20. Grayson, ML, Gibbons, GW, Balogh, K, et al. Probing to bone in infected pedal ulcers. A clinical sign of underlying osteomyelitis in diabetic patients. JAMA 1995; 273:721.
  21. Newman, LG, Waller, J, Palestro, CJ, et al. Unsuspected osteomyelitis in diabetic foot ulcers. JAMA 1991; 266:1246.
  22. Butalia, S, Palda, VA, Sargeant, RJ, et al. Does this patient with diabetes have osteomyelitis of the lower extremity?. JAMA 2008; 299:806.
  23. Dinh, MT, Abad, CL, Safdar, N. Diagnostic Accuracy of the Physical Examination and Imaging Tests for Osteomyelitis Underlying Diabetic Foot Ulcers: Meta-Analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2008; :.
  24. Abdelatif, M, Yakoot, M, Etmaan, M. Safety and efficacy of a new honey ointment on diabetic foot ulcers: a prospective pilot study. J Wound Care 2008; 17:108.
  25. Tan, JS, Friedman, NM, Hazelton-Miller, C, et al. Can aggressive treatment of diabetic foot infections reduce the need for above-ankle amputation?. Clin Infect Dis 1996; 23:286.
  26. Chang, BB, Darling RC, 3rd, Paty, PS, et al. Expeditious management of ischemic invasive foot infections. Cardiovasc Surg 1996; 4:792.
  27. Chantelau, E, Tanudjaja, T, Altenhofer, F, et al. Antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated neuropathic forefoot ulcers in diabetes: a controlled trial. Diabet Med 1996; 13:156.
  28. Hirschl, M, Hirschl, AM. Bacterial flora in mal perforant and antimicrobial treatment with ceftriaxone. Chemotherapy 1992; 38:275.
  29. Lipsky, BA. Evidence-based antibiotic therapy of diabetic foot infections. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 1999; 26:267.
  30. Grayson, ML, Gibbons, GW, Haberson, GM, et al. Use of ampicillin/sulbactam vs imipenem/cilastatin in treatment of limb-threatening foot infections in diabetic patients. Clin Infect Dis 1994; 18:683.
  31. Lipsky, BA, Baker, PD, Landon, GC, Fernau, R. Antibiotic therapy for diabetic foot infections: comparison of two parenteral-to-oral regimens. Clin Infect Dis 1997; 24:643.
  32. Blume, PA, Walters, J, Payne, W, et al. Comparison of negative pressure wound therapy using vacuum-assisted closure with advanced moist wound therapy in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 2008; 31:631.
  33. Cruciani, M, Lipsky, BA, Mengoli, C, de Lalla, F. Are granulocyte colony-stimulating factors beneficial in treating diabetic foot infections?: A meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 2005; 28:454.
  34. Gough, A, Clapperton, M, Rolando, N, et al. Randomized placebo-controlled trial of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in diabetic foot infection. Lancet 1997; 350:855.
white circle LOG IN
white circle DEMO