Bacterial and clinical profile of diabetic foot ulcer using optimal culture techniques

Swati V. Patil; Roshan R. Mane

doi:10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20170139

Authors

Swati V. Patil Department of pharmacology, LTMMC and GH, Sion, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
Roshan R. Mane Senior medical adviser, Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20170139

Keywords:

Aerobes, Anaerobes, Antimicrobial sensitivity testing, Diabetic foot ulcer

Abstract

Background: Diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) are the complications of diabetes mellitus. The diabetic foot ulcer infections are polymicrobial in nature. If they are not recognized and controlled it leads to many devastating consequences like limb amputation, sepsis, and even mortality. Hence, the present study was undertaken to determine the bacterial and clinical profile of diabetic foot ulcer using optimal culture techniques and the antimicrobial sensitivity pattern of the isolates.

Methods: A total number of 103 patients with a foot ulcer of Wagner’s grade II or more and evidence of purulent exudates or edema were included in the study. Swab samples were obtained from the base of ulcers and were sent for bacteriological study. The specimen was processed in the microbiology laboratory for Gram stain, aerobic culture, and anaerobic culture. The organisms isolated were identified by standard procedures and antimicrobial susceptibility was done by Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method.

Results: A total no of 253 organisms were isolated from 103 patients. Out of these, 217 aerobes were isolated, and the most common organism isolated from gram positive bacteria was Staphylococcus aureus, 53 (24.42 %). Pseudomonas aeruginosa, 42 (19.35 %) was the predominant organism isolated from gram negative bacteria. Among the total 36 anaerobes, Bacteroides fragilis group, 17 (47.22 %) was the most common organism isolated. All the gram positive aerobic organisms were found to be sensitive for vancomycin. Among the gram negative organisms, E. coli, Proteus mirabilis, Proteus vulgaris, showed more sensitivity to cefotaxime (90.62%, 91.66%, 75%) respectively. Metronidazole was the drug of choice in case of anaerobes followed by imipenem.

Conclusions: It is necessary to identify the etiological factors and susceptible microorganisms responsible for causation of DFU. So that prompt management of diabetic foot ulcers is possible for successful outcome. Appreciation of the causative organisms in diabetic foot and their antibiotic sensitivity is essential for institution of appropriate antibiotic therapy.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

World Health Day 2016: Diabetes. Available at http://www.searo.who.int/india/mediacentre/events/2016/en/. Accessed on 20 December 2016.

Aalaa M, Malazy OT, Sanjari M, Peimani M, Mohajeri-Tehrani M. Nurses’ role in diabetic foot prevention and care; a review. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2012;11:24.

Alavi A, Sibbald RG, Mayer D, Goodman L, Botros M, Armstrong DG, et al. Diabetic foot ulcers: Part II. Management. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;70:21.

Cavanagh PR, Lipsky BA, Bradbury AW, Botek G. Treatment for diabetic foot ulcers. Lancet. 2005;366:1725-35.

Edmonds M. Diabetic Foot Ulcer: Practical treatment recommendations. Drugs. 2006;66(7):914-29.

Richard JL, Schuldiner S. Epidemiology of diabetic foot problems. Rev Med Intern. 2008;29(2):222-30.

Nather A, Bee CS, Huak CY, Chew JL, Lin CB, Neo S, Sim EY. Epidemiology of diabetic foot problems and predictive factors for limb loss. J Diabetes Complications. 2008;22:77-82.

Bakri FG, Allan AH, Khader YS, Younes NA, Ajlouni KM. Prevalence of Diabetic Foot Ulcer and its Associated Risk Factors among Diabetic Patients in Jordan. J Med J. 2012;46:118-25.

Iraj B, Khorvash F, Ebneshahidi A, Askari G. Prevention of diabetic foot ulcer. Int J Prev Med. 2013;4:373-6.

Snyder RJ, Hanft JR. Diabetic foot ulcers-effects on QOL, costs, and mortality and the role of standard wound care and advanced-care therapies. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2009;55:28-38.

Cavanagh PR, Lipsky BA, Bradbury AW, Botek G. Treatment of Diabetic Foot Ulcers. Lancet. 2005;366:1725-35.

Collee JG, Fraser AG, Marmion BP, Simmons A. Mackie & McCartney Practical Medical Microbiology. 14th ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1996.

Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. CLSI guidelines. 2007;M100-S17.

Owens DR, Rolfe RD, Hentges DJ. Effectiveness of Palladium chloride for the isolation of anaerobes. J Clin Microbiol. 1976;3(2):218-20.

Slots J, Reynolds HS. Long wave U-V light flouroscence for identification of black pigmented Bacteroides spp. J Clin Microbiol. 1982;16(6):1148-51.

Khanolkar MP, Bain SC, Stephens JW. The Diabetic Foot. QJM. 2008;101(9):685-95.

Ramani A, Ramani R, Shivananda PG, Kundaje GN. Bacteriology of diabetic foot ulcers. Indian J of Pathol Microbiol. 1991;34(2):81-7.

Ellis Simonsen SM, Van Orman ER, Hatch BE, Jones SS, Gren LH, Hegmann KT, et al. Cellulitis incidence in a defined population. Epidemiol Infection. 2004;134:293-9.

Sambashiva Rao G, Satyam G. A comparative study of diabetic and non-diabetic foot infections with reference to etiopathogenesis, clinical features, and outcome. Sch J App Med Sci. 2016;4(7):2389-95.

Viswanathan V, Thomas N, Tandon N, Asirvatham A, Rajasekar S, Ramachandran A, et al. Profile of diabetic foot complications & its associated complications- a multicentric study from India. J Asso Physicians in India. 2005;53:935-6

Pittet D, Wyssa B, Herter-Clavel C, Kursteiner K, Vaucher J, Lew PD. outcome of diabetic foot infections treated conservatively. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(8):851-6.

Singh G, Chawla S. Amputation in diabetic patients. MJAFI. 2006;62(1):36-9.

Reiber GE, Vileikyte L. Causal pathways for incident lower-extremity ulcers in patients with diabetes from two settings. Diabetes Care. 1999;22:157–62.

Ramani A, Kundaje GN. Etiology of Diabetic Foot Ulceration. J Asso of Physician in India. 1990;38(11):843-5.

Viswanathan V, Jasmine JJ, Snehalatha C, Ramachandran A. Prevalence of pathogens in Diabetic foot infection in South Indian Type II Diabetic patients. J of Asso of Physician in India. 2002;50:1013-6.

Sapico FL, Canawati HN, Witte JL, Montgomerie JZ, Wagne FWr, Jr, Bessman AN. Quantitative aerobic and anaerobic bacteriology of infected diabetic feet. J Clin Microbiol. 1980;12(3):413-20.

Sharma VK, Khadka PB, Joshi A, Sharma R. Common pathogens isolated in diabetic foot infection in Bir hospital. Kathmandu University Med J. 2006;4(3):295-301.

Anandi C, Alaguraja D, Nataranjan V. Bacteriology of Diabetic Foot Lesions. Indian J Med Microbiol. 2004;22(3):175-8.

Citron DM, Goldstein EJC, Vreni Merriam C, Lipsky BA, Abramson MA. Bacteriology of Moderate-to-Severe Diabetic Foot Infections and In Vitro Activity of Antimicrobial Agents. J Clin Microbiol. 2007;45(9):2819-28.

Pathare NA, Bal A, Talalkar GV, Antani DU. Diabetic foot infections: a study of microorganisms associated with different Wagner’s grades. Indian J Pathol Microbial. 1998;47(4):439-41.

Vijay D, Lakshmikanth, Sheshadri. Bacteriology of diabetic foot infection. Biomedicine. 2000;20(3):176-9.

Abdulrazaka A, Bitarb ZI, Al-Shamalic AA, Mobasherc LA. Bacterial study of diabetic foot infections. J Diabetes & Complications. 2005;19(3):138-41.

Sharma VK, Khadka PB, Joshi A, Sharma R. Common pathogens isolated in diabetic foot infection in Bir hospital. Kathmandu University Med J. 2006;4(3):295-301.

Robert S, Yoran R, Micha R. Diabetic Foot Ulcers: Principles of Assessment & Treatment. IMAJ. 2001;3:59-62.

Louie TJ, Bartlett JG, Tally FP, Gorbach SL. Aerobic & anaerobic bacteria in diabetic foot ulcers. Annals Intern Med. 1976;85(4):461-3.

Shankar EM, Mohan V, Premalatha G, Srinivasan RS, Usha AR. Bacterial etiology of diabetic foot infections in South India. European J Intern Med. 2005;16(8):567-70.

Raja NS. Microbiology of diabetic foot infections in a teaching hospital in Malaysia: A retrospective study of 194 cases. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2007;40:39-44.