Diabetic Foot Infection

Am Fam Physician. 2008 Jul 1;78(1):71-79.

  Patient information: See related handout on diabetic foot infection, written by the author of this article.

Foot infections are common in patients with diabetes and are associated with high morbidity and risk of lower extremity amputation. Diabetic foot infections are classified as mild, moderate, or severe. Gram-positive bacteria, such as Staphylococcus aureus and beta-hemolytic streptococci, are the most common pathogens in previously untreated mild and moderate infection. Severe, chronic, or previously treated infections are often polymicrobial. The diagnosis of diabetic foot infection is based on the clinical signs and symptoms of local inflammation. Infected wounds should be cultured after debridement. Tissue specimens obtained by scraping the base of the ulcer with a scalpel or by wound or bone biopsy are strongly preferred to wound swabs. Imaging studies are indicated for suspected deep soft tissue purulent collections or osteomyelitis. Optimal management requires aggressive surgical debridement and wound management, effective antibiotic therapy, and correction of metabolic abnormalities (mainly hyperglycemia and arterial insufficiency). Treatment with antibiotics is not required for noninfected ulcers. Mild soft tissue infection can be treated effectively with oral antibiotics, including dicloxacillin, cephalexin, and clindamycin. Severe soft tissue infection can be initially treated intravenously with ciprofloxacin plus clindamycin; piperacillin/tazobactam; or imipenem/cilastatin. The risk of methicillin-resistant S. aureus infection should be considered when choosing a regimen. Antibiotic treatment should last from one to four weeks for soft tissue infection and six to 12 weeks for osteomyelitis and should be followed by culture-guided definitive therapy.

In patients with diabetes, any foot infection is potentially serious. Diabetic foot infections range in severity from superficial paronychia to deep infection involving bone. Types of infection include cellulitis, myositis, abscesses, necrotizing fasciitis, septic arthritis, tendinitis, and osteomyelitis. Foot infections are among the most common and serious complications of diabetes mellitus. They are associated with increased frequency and length of hospitalization and risk of lower extremity amputation.1 Foot ulceration and infection are the leading risk factors for amputation.2 Prevention and prompt diagnosis and treatment are necessary to prevent morbidity, especially amputation.

SORT: KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Clinical recommendation Evidence rating References

The existence, severity, and extent of infection, as well as vascular status, neuropathy, and glycemic control should be assessed in patients with a diabetic foot infection.

C

3, 9

Visible bone and palpable bone on probing are suggestive of underlying osteomyelitis in patients with a diabetic foot infection.

C

13, 14

Before an infected wound of a diabetic foot infection is cultured, any overlying necrotic debris should be removed to eliminate surface contamination and to provide more accurate results.

C

3, 17

Routine wound swabs and cultures of material from sinus tracts are unreliable and strongly discouraged in the management of diabetic foot infection.

B

1719

The empiric antibiotic regimen for diabetic foot infection should always include an agent active against Staphylococcus aureus, including methicillin-resistant S. aureus if necessary, and streptococci.

A

3, 5, 7, 8


A = consistent, good-quality patient-oriented evidence; B = inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence; C = consensus, disease-oriented evidence, usual practice, expert opinion, or case series. For information about the SORT evidence rating system, see http://www.aafp.org/afpsort.xml.

SORT: KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE

View Table

SORT: KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Clinical recommendation Evidence rating References

The existence, severity, and extent of infection, as well as vascular status, neuropathy, and glycemic control should be assessed in patients with a diabetic foot infection.

C

3, 9

Visible bone and palpable bone on probing are suggestive of underlying osteomyelitis in patients with a diabetic foot infection.

C

13, 14

Before an infected wound of a diabetic foot infection is cultured, any overlying necrotic debris should be removed to eliminate surface contamination and to provide more accurate results.

C

3, 17

Routine wound swabs and cultures of material from sinus tracts are unreliable and strongly discouraged in the management of diabetic foot infection.

B

1719

The empiric antibiotic regimen for diabetic foot infection should always include an agent active against Staphylococcus aureus, including methicillin-resistant S. aureus if necessary, and streptococci.

A

3, 5, 7, 8


A = consistent, good-quality patient-oriented evidence; B = inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence; C = consensus, disease-oriented evidence, usual practice, expert opinion, or case series. For information about the SORT evidence rating system, see http://www.aafp.org/afpsort.xml.

Pathophysiology

Patients with diabetes are particularly susceptible to foot infection primarily because of neuropathy, vascular insufficiency, and diminished neutrophil function.3 Peripheral neuropathy has a central role in the development of a foot infection and it occurs in about 30 to 50 percent of patients with diabetes. Patients with diabetes lose the protective sensations for temperature and pain, impairing awareness of trauma such as abrasions, blistering, or penetrating foreign body. Motor neuropathy can result in foot deformities (e.g., claw toe) that contribute to local pressure from footwear, making skin ulceration even more likely. Once the skin is broken (typically on the plantar surface), the underlying tissues are exposed to colonization by pathogenic organisms. The resulting wound infection may begin superficially, but with delay in treatment and impaired body defense mechanisms caused by neutrophil dysfunction and vascular insufficiency, it can spread to the contiguous subcutaneous tissues and to even deeper structures.3,4

Although most diabetic foot infections begin with an ulcer, localized cellulitis and necrotizing fasciitis can develop in the absence of an ulcer or traumatic injury.

Microbiology

The most common pathogens in acute, previously untreated, superficial infected foot wounds in patients with diabetes are aerobic gram-positive bacteria, particularly Staphylococcus aureus and beta-hemolytic streptococci (group A, B, and others).5 Infection in patients who have recently received antibiotics or who have deep limb-threatening infection or chronic wounds are usually caused by a mixture of aerobic gram-positive, aerobic gram-negative (e.g., Escherichia coli, Proteus species, Klebsiella species), and anaerobic organisms (e.g., Bacteroides species, Clostridium species, Peptococcus and Peptostreptococcus species).5 Anaerobic bacteria are usually part of mixed infections in patients with foot ischemia or gangrene.6 Methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) is a more common pathogen in patients who have been previously hospitalized or who have recently received antibiotic therapy. MRSA infection can also occur in the absence of risk factors because of the increasing prevalence of MRSA in the community.7,8

Clinical Evaluation

Key elements for evaluating and treating diabetic foot infection are summarized in Figure 1.9

Evaluation and Treatment of Diabetic Foot Infection

Figure 1.

Algorithm for the evaluation and treatment of diabetic foot infection.

Adapted with permission from Lipsky BA. Medical treatment of diabetic foot infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;(39 suppl 2):S110.

View Large

Evaluation and Treatment of Diabetic Foot Infection


Figure 1.

Algorithm for the evaluation and treatment of diabetic foot infection.

Adapted with permission from Lipsky BA. Medical treatment of diabetic foot infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;(39 suppl 2):S110.

Evaluation and Treatment of Diabetic Foot Infection


Figure 1.

Algorithm for the evaluation and treatment of diabetic foot infection.

Adapted with permission from Lipsky BA. Medical treatment of diabetic foot infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;(39 suppl 2):S110.

CONFIRMING THE DIAGNOSIS

Diabetic foot infection must be diagnosed clinically rather than bacteriologically because all skin ulcers harbor micro-organisms (Figure 2). The clinical diagnosis of foot infection is based on the presence of purulent discharge from an ulcer or the classic signs of inflammation (i.e., erythema, pain, tenderness, warmth, or induration). Other suggestive features of infection include foul odor, the presence of necrosis, and failure of wound healing despite optimal management.10 Local inflammatory findings may be less prominent or absent in some diabetic foot infections. For example, pain and tenderness may be reduced or absent in patients who have neuropathy, whereas erythema may be absent in those with vascular disease.11 Acute Charcot's foot is characterized by a progressive deterioration of weight-bearing joints, usually in the foot or ankle. It can clinically mimic cellulitis and presents as erythema, edema, and elevated temperature of the foot. Most patients with diabetic foot infection do not have systemic features such as fever or chills. The presence of systemic signs or symptoms indicates a severe deep infection.12

Figure 2.

A noninfected ulcer of the dorsum of the foot in a patient with previous amputation of the toes.

View Large


Figure 2.

A noninfected ulcer of the dorsum of the foot in a patient with previous amputation of the toes.


Figure 2.

A noninfected ulcer of the dorsum of the foot in a patient with previous amputation of the toes.

ESTABLISHING EXTENT OF INFECTION

Early recognition of the area of involved tissue can facilitate appropriate management and prevent progression of the infection (Figure 3). The wound should be cleansed and debrided carefully to remove foreign bodies or necrotic material and should be probed with a sterile metal instrument to identify any sinus tracts, abscesses, or involvement of bones or joints.

Figure 3.

Plantar foot ulcers with a deep space infection.

View Large


Figure 3.

Plantar foot ulcers with a deep space infection.


Figure 3.

Plantar foot ulcers with a deep space infection.

Osteomyelitis is a common and serious complication of diabetic foot infection that poses a diagnostic challenge. A delay in diagnosis increases the risk of amputation.13  Risk factors associated with osteomyelitis are summarized in Table 1.3,1316 Visible bone and palpable bone by probing are suggestive of underlying osteomyelitis in patients with a diabetic foot infection.1314 Laboratory studies, such as white blood cell count and the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), have limited sensitivity for the diagnosis of osteomyelitis. Osteomyelitis is unlikely with normal ESR values; however, an ESR of more than 70 mm per hour supports a clinical suspicion of osteomyelitis.13 Definitive diagnosis requires percutaneous or open bone biopsy. Bone biopsy is recommended if the diagnosis of osteomyelitis remains in doubt after imaging.3

Table 1

Risk Factors for Osteomyelitis in Patients with Diabetic Foot Infection

Appearance of a swollen, deformed red toe (also called sausage toe)

Bone visible or palpable on probing

Infected ulcer with an erythrocyte sedimentation rate of more than 70 mm per hour

Nonhealing ulcer after a few weeks of appropriate care and off-loading of pressure

Radiologically evident bone destruction beneath ulcer

Ulcer area greater than 2 cm2 or more than 3 mm deep

Ulceration presents over bony prominences for more than two weeks

Ulceration with unexplained leukocytosis


Information from references 3 and 13 through 16.

Table 1   Risk Factors for Osteomyelitis in Patients with Diabetic Foot Infection

View Table

Table 1

Risk Factors for Osteomyelitis in Patients with Diabetic Foot Infection

Appearance of a swollen, deformed red toe (also called sausage toe)

Bone visible or palpable on probing

Infected ulcer with an erythrocyte sedimentation rate of more than 70 mm per hour

Nonhealing ulcer after a few weeks of appropriate care and off-loading of pressure

Radiologically evident bone destruction beneath ulcer

Ulcer area greater than 2 cm2 or more than 3 mm deep

Ulceration presents over bony prominences for more than two weeks

Ulceration with unexplained leukocytosis


Information from references 3 and 13 through 16.

ESTABLISHING SEVERITY OF INFECTION

The severity of the infection determines the appropriate antibiotic regimen and route of administration. It also is the primary consideration in determining the need for hospitalization and the indications and timing for any surgical intervention. A practical and simple approach to classifying diabetic foot infection is provided in Table 2.3

Table 2

Clinical Classification of Diabetic Foot Infection

Clinical manifestations of infection Infection severity

Wound lacking purulence or any manifestations of inflammation (i.e., erythema, pain, tenderness, warmth, or induration)

Not infected

Presence of purulence and/or two or more manifestations of inflammation, but any cellulitis or erythema extends 2 cm or less around the ulcer; infection is limited to the skin or superficial subcutaneous tissues; no other local complications or systemic illness

Mild

Infection (purulence and/or two or more manifestations of inflammation) in a patient who is systemically well and metabolically stable, but who has at least one of the following characteristics: cellulitis extending more than 2 cm around the ulcer; lymphangitic streaking; spread beneath the superficial fascia; deep tissue abscess; gangrene; involvement of muscle, tendon, joint, or bone

Moderate

Infection (purulence and/or two or more manifestations of inflammation) in a patient with systemic toxicity or metabolic instability (e.g., fever, chills, tachycardia, hypotension, confusion, vomiting, leukocytosis, acidosis, severe hyperglycemia, azotemia)

Severe


Adapted from Lipsky BA, Berendt A, Deery G, et al., for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39(7):894.

Table 2   Clinical Classification of Diabetic Foot Infection

View Table

Table 2

Clinical Classification of Diabetic Foot Infection

Clinical manifestations of infection Infection severity

Wound lacking purulence or any manifestations of inflammation (i.e., erythema, pain, tenderness, warmth, or induration)

Not infected

Presence of purulence and/or two or more manifestations of inflammation, but any cellulitis or erythema extends 2 cm or less around the ulcer; infection is limited to the skin or superficial subcutaneous tissues; no other local complications or systemic illness

Mild

Infection (purulence and/or two or more manifestations of inflammation) in a patient who is systemically well and metabolically stable, but who has at least one of the following characteristics: cellulitis extending more than 2 cm around the ulcer; lymphangitic streaking; spread beneath the superficial fascia; deep tissue abscess; gangrene; involvement of muscle, tendon, joint, or bone

Moderate

Infection (purulence and/or two or more manifestations of inflammation) in a patient with systemic toxicity or metabolic instability (e.g., fever, chills, tachycardia, hypotension, confusion, vomiting, leukocytosis, acidosis, severe hyperglycemia, azotemia)

Severe


Adapted from Lipsky BA, Berendt A, Deery G, et al., for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39(7):894.

OBTAINING CULTURES

Before an infected wound is cultured, any overlying necrotic debris should be removed by scrubbing the wound with saline-moistened sterile gauze to eliminate surface contamination.3,17 For wound culture, tissue specimens should be obtained by scraping the base of the ulcer with a scalpel or curette, or by a biopsy of the wound or bone. Needle aspiration of the pus or tissue fluid performed aseptically is an acceptable alternative method. Cultures of wound swabs or material from sinus tracts are unreliable and are strongly discouraged.1719 The specimen should be processed for a Gram-stained smear and aerobic and anaerobic cultures.

ASSESSING VASCULAR STATUS

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) can be diagnosed by absence of foot pulses and reduced ankle-brachial index (ABI). Calculation of ABI is done by measuring the resting systolic blood pressure in the ankle and arm using a Doppler probe. An ABI of 0.91 to 1.30 is borderline or normal. An ABI of 0.41 to 0.90 indicates mild to moderate PAD and an ABI of 0.40 or less indicates advanced ischemia. An ABI greater than 1.30 suggests the presence of calcified vessels and the need for additional vascular studies, such as pulse volume recording or measurement of the toe-brachial index. Patients with atypical symptoms, or whose diagnosis is in doubt, should have ABI measured after exercise on a treadmill. An ABI that decreases by 20 percent following exercise is diagnostic of PAD, whereas a normal ABI following exercise rules out PAD. If a PAD diagnosis is confirmed and revascularization is planned, magnetic resonance angiography, computed tomography angiography, or contrast angiography can be performed for anatomic evaluation.20

Venous insufficiency can be diagnosed clinically by the presence of edema and skin changes and confirmed by duplex ultrasonography.

ASSESSING NEUROPATHY

Touch, vibration, and pressure sensations should be checked routinely using cotton wool, tuning fork, and 10-g nylon monofilament, respectively.

Diagnostic Imaging

Diagnostic imaging is not necessary for every patient with diabetes who has a foot infection. Plain radiography of the foot is indicated for detection of osteomyelitis, foreign bodies, or soft tissue gas. Bony abnormalities associated with osteomyelitis may be indistinguishable from the destructive effects of Charcot's foot and are usually not evident on plain radiography until two to four weeks after initial infection.21  When plain radiography is negative but osteomyelitis is clinically suspected, radio-nuclide scan or magnetic resonance imaging should be performed (Table 32123). Combining technetium bone scan with gallium scan or white blood cell scan may improve the diagnostic yield for osteomyelitis.21,22 Magnetic resonance imaging provides more accurate information regarding the extent of the infectious process.23 Ultrasonography and computed tomography are also helpful in evaluating abnormalities in the soft tissue (e.g., abscess, sinus tract, cortical bone involvement) and may provide guidance for diagnostic and therapeutic aspiration, drainage, or tissue biopsy.21

Table 3

Diagnostic Imaging Studies for Osteomyelitis of the Foot in Patients with Diabetes

Imaging study Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) Comments

Plain radiography

43 to 75

65 to 83

Lateral, anteroposterior, and oblique views should be done initially in all patients with diabetes who are suspected to have a deep infection

Because 30 to 50 percent of the bone must be destroyed before lytic lesions appear, plain radiography should be repeated at two-week intervals if initial findings are not normal, but the infection fails to resolve

Soft tissue swelling and subperiosteal elevation are the earliest findings of osteomyelitis on plain radiography

Magnetic resonance imaging

82 to 100

75 to 96

Useful in between soft tissue and bone infection and for determining the extent of infection

Should be considered for patients with diabetes who have an infection with no bone exposed, who have been treated for two to three weeks with modest clinical improvement, and who have negative or inconclusive results on plain radiography

Technetium-99m methylene diphosphonate bone scan

69 to 100

38 to 82

High sensitivity for osteomyelitis and can differentiate it from cellulitis

Abnormal findings for osteomyelitis (which typically become evident within 24 to 48 hours after onset of symptoms) include increased flow activity, blood pool activity, and positive uptake on three-hour images

Specificity for osteomyelitis is decreased in patients with diabetes who have Charcot's foot or recent trauma or surgery; further imaging is usually required

Gallium-67 citrate scan

25 to 80

67 to 85

Sensitivity and specificity are increased when combined with technetium bone scan

Technetium-99m hexamethyl-propyleneamine oxime-labeled white blood cell scan

90

80 to 90

The main advantage is the marked improvement in specificity when combined with technetium bone scan

Computed tomography

24 to 67

50

Should not be used as part of regular osteomyelitis imaging

Superior to magnetic resonance imaging for detecting sequestra


Information from references 21 through 23.

Table 3   Diagnostic Imaging Studies for Osteomyelitis of the Foot in Patients with Diabetes

View Table

Table 3

Diagnostic Imaging Studies for Osteomyelitis of the Foot in Patients with Diabetes

Imaging study Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) Comments

Plain radiography

43 to 75

65 to 83

Lateral, anteroposterior, and oblique views should be done initially in all patients with diabetes who are suspected to have a deep infection

Because 30 to 50 percent of the bone must be destroyed before lytic lesions appear, plain radiography should be repeated at two-week intervals if initial findings are not normal, but the infection fails to resolve

Soft tissue swelling and subperiosteal elevation are the earliest findings of osteomyelitis on plain radiography

Magnetic resonance imaging

82 to 100

75 to 96

Useful in between soft tissue and bone infection and for determining the extent of infection

Should be considered for patients with diabetes who have an infection with no bone exposed, who have been treated for two to three weeks with modest clinical improvement, and who have negative or inconclusive results on plain radiography

Technetium-99m methylene diphosphonate bone scan

69 to 100

38 to 82

High sensitivity for osteomyelitis and can differentiate it from cellulitis

Abnormal findings for osteomyelitis (which typically become evident within 24 to 48 hours after onset of symptoms) include increased flow activity, blood pool activity, and positive uptake on three-hour images

Specificity for osteomyelitis is decreased in patients with diabetes who have Charcot's foot or recent trauma or surgery; further imaging is usually required

Gallium-67 citrate scan

25 to 80

67 to 85

Sensitivity and specificity are increased when combined with technetium bone scan

Technetium-99m hexamethyl-propyleneamine oxime-labeled white blood cell scan

90

80 to 90

The main advantage is the marked improvement in specificity when combined with technetium bone scan

Computed tomography

24 to 67

50

Should not be used as part of regular osteomyelitis imaging

Superior to magnetic resonance imaging for detecting sequestra


Information from references 21 through 23.

Treatment

Effective management of diabetic foot infection requires appropriate antibiotic therapy, surgical drainage, debridement and resection of dead tissue, appropriate wound care, and correction of metabolic abnormalities.

ANTIBIOTIC THERAPY

The selection of antibiotic therapy for diabetic foot infection involves decisions about choice of empiric and definitive antibiotic agent, route of administration, and duration of treatment (Tables 43,9  and 53,2430). Initial empiric antibiotic therapy should be based on the severity of the infection, history of recent antibiotic treatment, previous infection with resistant organisms, recent culture results, current Gram stain findings, and patient factors (e.g., drug allergy). A Gram-stained smear of an appropriate wound specimen may help guide therapy. The overall sensitivity of a Gram-stained smear for identifying organisms that grow on culture is 70 percent.9 The empiric antibiotic regimen for diabetic foot infection should always include an agent active against S. aureus, including MRSA if necessary, and streptococci.3,5,7,8

Table 4

Principles of Antibiotic Therapy for Diabetic Foot Infection

Empiric antibiotic regimen should include an agent active against Staphylococcus aureus, including methicillin-resistant S. aureus if necessary, and streptococci

Coverage for aerobic gram-negative pathogens is required for severe infection, chronic infection, or infection that fails to respond to recent antibiotic therapy

Necrotic, gangrenous, or foul-smelling wounds usually require antianaerobic therapy

Initial empiric antibiotic therapy should be modified on the basis of the clinical response and culture or susceptibility testing

Virulent organisms, such as S. aureus and streptococci, should always be covered in polymicrobial infection

Coverage for less virulent organisms, such as coagulase-negative staphylococci, may not be needed

Parenteral antibiotics are indicated for patients who are systemically ill, have severe infection, are unable to tolerate oral agents, or have infection caused by pathogens that are not susceptible to oral agents

Using oral antibiotics for mild to moderate infection and switching early from parenteral to oral antibiotics with appropriate spectrum coverage and good bioavailability and tolerability are strongly encouraged

Although topical antibiotics can be effective for the treatment of mildly infected ulcers, they should not be routinely used

Discontinuation of antibiotics should be considered when all signs and symptoms of infection have resolved, even if the wound has not completely healed

Cost should be considered when selecting antibiotic therapy


Information from references 3 and 9.

Table 4   Principles of Antibiotic Therapy for Diabetic Foot Infection

View Table

Table 4

Principles of Antibiotic Therapy for Diabetic Foot Infection

Empiric antibiotic regimen should include an agent active against Staphylococcus aureus, including methicillin-resistant S. aureus if necessary, and streptococci

Coverage for aerobic gram-negative pathogens is required for severe infection, chronic infection, or infection that fails to respond to recent antibiotic therapy

Necrotic, gangrenous, or foul-smelling wounds usually require antianaerobic therapy

Initial empiric antibiotic therapy should be modified on the basis of the clinical response and culture or susceptibility testing

Virulent organisms, such as S. aureus and streptococci, should always be covered in polymicrobial infection

Coverage for less virulent organisms, such as coagulase-negative staphylococci, may not be needed

Parenteral antibiotics are indicated for patients who are systemically ill, have severe infection, are unable to tolerate oral agents, or have infection caused by pathogens that are not susceptible to oral agents

Using oral antibiotics for mild to moderate infection and switching early from parenteral to oral antibiotics with appropriate spectrum coverage and good bioavailability and tolerability are strongly encouraged

Although topical antibiotics can be effective for the treatment of mildly infected ulcers, they should not be routinely used

Discontinuation of antibiotics should be considered when all signs and symptoms of infection have resolved, even if the wound has not completely healed

Cost should be considered when selecting antibiotic therapy


Information from references 3 and 9.

Table 5

Empiric Antibiotic Regimens for Treatment of Diabetic Foot Infection

Severity or extent of infection Recommended therapy Comments

Soft tissue infection

Mild (duration of treatment is one to two weeks)

Dicloxacillin 500 mg orally four times per day

Oral agent of choice for MSSA

Cephalexin (Keflex) 500 mg orally four times per day

For penicillin-allergic patients, except those with immediate hypersensitivity reactions

Amoxicillin/clavulanate (Augmentin) 875/125 mg orally twice per day

Good option for polymicrobial infection

Clindamycin (Cleocin) 300 to 450 mg orally three times per day

Potential cross-resistance and emergence of resistance in erythromycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; inducible resistance in MRSA

Doxycycline (Vibramycin) 100 mg orally twice per day or Sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim (Bactrim) 160/800 mg orally twice per day

Effective for MRSA

Moderate (duration of treatment is two to four weeks, depending on response; administer orally or parenterally followed by orally)

Risk factors for polymicrobial infection absent*

Nafcillin 1 to 2 g IV every four hours

Parenteral drug of choice for MSSA

Cefazolin 1 to 2 g IV every eight hours

For penicillin-allergic patients

Vancomycin 30 mg per kg IV twice per day

Parenteral drug of choice for MRSA

Risk factors for polymicrobial infection present*

Ampicillin/sulbactam (Unasyn) 3 g IV four times per day

Ceftriaxone (Rocephin) 1 to 2 g IV once per day plus clindamycin 600 to 900 mg IV or orally three times per day or metronidazole (Flagyl) 500 mg IV or orally three times per day

or

Levofloxacin (Levaquin) 500 mg IV or orally once per day plus clindamycin 600 to 900 mg IV or orally three times per day

Moxifloxacin (Avelox) 400 mg IV or orally once per day

Ertapenem (Invanz) 1 g IV once per day

Severe (duration of treatment is two to four weeks, depending on response; administer parenterally, then switch to orally)

Ciprofloxacin (Cipro) 400 mg IV twice per day plus clindamycin 600 to 900 mg IV three times per day

Piperacillin/tazobactam (Zosyn) 3.375 to 4.500 g IV every six to eight hours

Imipenem/cilastatin (Primaxin) 500 mg IV four times per day

Vancomycin 30 mg per kg IV twice per day plus ciprofloxacin 400 mg IV twice per day plus metronidazole 500 mg IV or orally three times per day

Vancomycin is the parenteral drug of choice for MRSA; linezolid (Zyvox) 600 mg IV or orally twice per day or daptomycin (Cubicin) 4 mg per kg IV once per day can also be used for MRSA Use vancomycin for penicillin-allergic patients

Tigecycline (Tygacil) 100 mg IV loading dose then 50 mg IV twice per day

Should be used when suspected polymicrobial infection, including MRSA

Bone or joint infection

No residual infected tissue

Use the above parenteral or oral antibiotic regimens for two to five days

Residual infected tissue only

Use the above parenteral or oral antibiotic regimens for two to four weeks

Residual infected viable bone

Initially use the above parenteral antibiotics followed by oral antibiotics for four to six weeks

Residual infected dead bone

Initially use the above parenteral antibiotics followed by oral antibiotics for eight to 12 weeks


IV = intravenously; MRSA = methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; MSSA = methicillin-susceptible S. aureus.

*— Risk factors for polymicrobial infection include chronic ulcers, recent antibiotic use, and foot ischemia or gangrene.

Information from references 3 and 24 through 30.

Table 5   Empiric Antibiotic Regimens for Treatment of Diabetic Foot Infection

View Table

Table 5

Empiric Antibiotic Regimens for Treatment of Diabetic Foot Infection

Severity or extent of infection Recommended therapy Comments

Soft tissue infection

Mild (duration of treatment is one to two weeks)

Dicloxacillin 500 mg orally four times per day

Oral agent of choice for MSSA

Cephalexin (Keflex) 500 mg orally four times per day

For penicillin-allergic patients, except those with immediate hypersensitivity reactions

Amoxicillin/clavulanate (Augmentin) 875/125 mg orally twice per day

Good option for polymicrobial infection

Clindamycin (Cleocin) 300 to 450 mg orally three times per day

Potential cross-resistance and emergence of resistance in erythromycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; inducible resistance in MRSA

Doxycycline (Vibramycin) 100 mg orally twice per day or Sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim (Bactrim) 160/800 mg orally twice per day

Effective for MRSA

Moderate (duration of treatment is two to four weeks, depending on response; administer orally or parenterally followed by orally)

Risk factors for polymicrobial infection absent*

Nafcillin 1 to 2 g IV every four hours

Parenteral drug of choice for MSSA

Cefazolin 1 to 2 g IV every eight hours

For penicillin-allergic patients

Vancomycin 30 mg per kg IV twice per day

Parenteral drug of choice for MRSA

Risk factors for polymicrobial infection present*

Ampicillin/sulbactam (Unasyn) 3 g IV four times per day

Ceftriaxone (Rocephin) 1 to 2 g IV once per day plus clindamycin 600 to 900 mg IV or orally three times per day or metronidazole (Flagyl) 500 mg IV or orally three times per day

or

Levofloxacin (Levaquin) 500 mg IV or orally once per day plus clindamycin 600 to 900 mg IV or orally three times per day

Moxifloxacin (Avelox) 400 mg IV or orally once per day

Ertapenem (Invanz) 1 g IV once per day

Severe (duration of treatment is two to four weeks, depending on response; administer parenterally, then switch to orally)

Ciprofloxacin (Cipro) 400 mg IV twice per day plus clindamycin 600 to 900 mg IV three times per day

Piperacillin/tazobactam (Zosyn) 3.375 to 4.500 g IV every six to eight hours

Imipenem/cilastatin (Primaxin) 500 mg IV four times per day

Vancomycin 30 mg per kg IV twice per day plus ciprofloxacin 400 mg IV twice per day plus metronidazole 500 mg IV or orally three times per day

Vancomycin is the parenteral drug of choice for MRSA; linezolid (Zyvox) 600 mg IV or orally twice per day or daptomycin (Cubicin) 4 mg per kg IV once per day can also be used for MRSA Use vancomycin for penicillin-allergic patients

Tigecycline (Tygacil) 100 mg IV loading dose then 50 mg IV twice per day

Should be used when suspected polymicrobial infection, including MRSA

Bone or joint infection

No residual infected tissue

Use the above parenteral or oral antibiotic regimens for two to five days

Residual infected tissue only

Use the above parenteral or oral antibiotic regimens for two to four weeks

Residual infected viable bone

Initially use the above parenteral antibiotics followed by oral antibiotics for four to six weeks

Residual infected dead bone

Initially use the above parenteral antibiotics followed by oral antibiotics for eight to 12 weeks


IV = intravenously; MRSA = methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; MSSA = methicillin-susceptible S. aureus.

*— Risk factors for polymicrobial infection include chronic ulcers, recent antibiotic use, and foot ischemia or gangrene.

Information from references 3 and 24 through 30.

The patient should be reassessed 24 to 72 hours after initiating empiric antibiotic therapy to evaluate the response and to modify the antibiotic regimen, if indicated by early culture results. Several antibiotics have been shown to be effective, but no single regimen has shown superiority.3,2430 Antibiotic therapy should not be used for foot ulcers without signs of infection because it does not enhance wound healing or prevent infection.31 Clinical failure of appropriate antibiotic therapy might be because of patient nonadherence, antibiotic resistance, superinfection, undiagnosed deep abscess or osteomyelitis, or severe tissue ischemia.

SURGICAL TREATMENT

Surgery is the cornerstone of treatment for deep diabetic foot infection. Procedures range from simple incision and drainage to extensive multiple surgical debridements and amputation. Timely and aggressive surgical debridement or limited resection or amputation may reduce the need for more extensive amputation.32 Emergent surgery is required for severe infection in an ischemic limb, necrotizing fasciitis, gas gangrene, and an infection associated with compartment syndrome. Surgical excision of affected bone has historically been the standard of care in patients with osteomyelitis. Nevertheless, successful therapy with a long course of antibiotics alone has been achieved in two thirds of patients with osteomyelitis.12 As infection is controlled and the wound starts to granulate, primary closure may be successful. The wound may also be treated surgically with a flap or graft, left to heal by secondary intention, or managed with negative pressure dressings.33

If the infected limb appears to be ischemic, the patient should be referred to a vascular surgeon. Although noncritical ischemia can usually be treated without a vascular procedure, early revascularization within a few days of the infection is required for successful treatment of an infected foot with critical ischemia.34

WOUND MANAGEMENT

The wound should be dressed to allow for careful inspection for evidence of healing and early identification of new necrotic tissue. Necrotic or unhealthy tissue should be debrided, preferably surgically or with topical debriding agents. Removing pressure from the foot wound is crucial for healing35 and can be achieved through total contact casting, removable cast walkers, and various ambulatory braces, splints, modified half-shoes, and sandals.36 Edema of the legs can delay wound healing; controlling edema with leg elevation, compression stockings, or a pneumatic pedal compression device enhances the healing process.37 Evidence of resolution of infection includes formation of granulation tissue, absence of necrotic tissue, and closing of the wound. If osteomyelitis is present, signs of healing include a drop in ESR and loss of increased uptake on nuclear scan.

METABOLIC STABILITY

Correction of fluid and electrolyte imbalances, hyperglycemia, acidosis, and azotemia is essential. Good glycemic control may help eradicate the infection and promote wound healing.38 All patients should have blood glucose and A1C levels measured at initial presentation and then at regular intervals. Frequent home blood glucose monitoring is strongly encouraged. Appropriate therapeutic adjustments (e.g., adding or changing oral antihyperglycemic agents, initiating or increasing insulin) must be made to optimize glycemic control.

OTHER THERAPIES

Maggot debridement therapy, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, and hyperbaric oxygen therapy have been used for diabetic foot infection, but should not be used routinely because of lack of evidence of effectiveness.3

Prevention

Prevention of diabetic foot ulcers begins with identifying patients at risk. All patients with diabetes should have an annual foot examination that includes assessment for anatomic deformities, skin breaks, nail disorders, loss of protection sensation, diminished arterial supply, and inappropriate footwear. Patients at higher risk of foot ulceration should have examinations more often.39 Educating patients and caretakers about proper foot care and periodic self-foot examinations are effective interventions to prevent ulceration. Other effective clinical interventions include optimizing glycemic control, smoking cessation, debridement of calluses, and certain types of prophylactic foot surgery.40

The Author

MAZEN S. BADER, MD, MPH, is an assistant professor of medicine at the Memorial University of Newfoundland School of Medicine in St. John's, Canada. He received his medical degree from Istanbul (Turkey) University School of Medicine and his master of public health degree from the University of Kansas in Lawrence. Dr. Bader completed an internal medicine residency at the University of Chicago (Ill.) Pritzker School of Medicine and an infectious diseases fellowship at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City.

Address correspondence to Mazen S. Bader, MD, MPH, 300 Prince Phillip Dr., Division of Infectious Diseases, St. John's, NL, Canada A1B3V6 (e-mail: msbader1@hotmail.com). Reprints are not available from the author.

Author disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Figures 2 and 3 courtesy of David G. Armstrong, MD.

 

REFERENCES

1. Boulton AJ, Vileikyte L, Ragnarson-Tennvall G, Apelqvist J. The global burden of diabetic foot disease. Lancet. 2005;366(9498):1719–1724.

2. Carmona GA, Hoffmeyer P, Herrmann FR, et al. Major lower limb amputations in the elderly observed over ten years: the role of diabetes and peripheral arterial disease. Diabetes Metab. 2005;31(5):449–454.

3. Lipsky BA, Berendt A, Deery HG, et al., for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39(7):885–910.

4. Delamaire M, Maugendre D, Moreno M, Le Goff MC, Allannic H, Genetet B. Impaired leucocyte functions in diabetic patients. Diabet Med. 1997;14(1):29–34.

5. Abdulrazak A, Bitar ZI, Al-Shamali AA, Mobasher LA. Bacteriological study of diabetic foot infections. J Diabetes Complications. 2005;19(3):138–141.

6. Gerding DN. Foot infections in diabetic patients: the role of anaerobes. Clin Infect Dis. 1995;20(suppl 2):S283–S288.

7. Tentolouris N, Petrikkos G, Vallianou N, et al. Prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in infected and uninfected diabetic foot ulcers. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2006;12(2):186–189.

8. King MD, Humphrey BJ, Wang YF, Kourbatova EV, Ray SM, Blumberg HM. Emergence of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus USA 300 clone as the predominant cause of skin and soft-tissue infections. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(5):309–317.

9. Lipsky BA. Medical treatment of diabetic foot infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39(suppl 2):S104–S114.

10. Williams DT, Hilton JR, Harding KG. Diagnosing foot infections in diabetes. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39(suppl 2):S83–S86.

11. Eneroth M, Apelqvist J, Stenström A. Clinical characteristics and outcome in 223 diabetic patients with deep foot infections. Foot Ankle Int. 1997;18(11):716–722.

12. Pittet D, Wyssa B, Herter-Clavel C, Kursteiner K, Vaucher J, Lew PD. Outcome of diabetic foot infections treated conservatively: a retrospective cohort study with long-term follow-up. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(8):851–856.

13. Newman LG, Waller J, Palestro CJ, et al. Unsuspected osteomyelitis in diabetic foot ulcers. Diagnosis and monitoring by leukocyte scanning with indium In 111 oxyquinoline. JAMA. 1991;266(9):1246–1251.

14. Grayson ML, Gibbons GW, Balogh K, Levin E, Karchmer AW. Probing to bone in infected pedal ulcers. A clinical sign of underlying osteomyelitis in diabetic patients. JAMA. 1995;273(9):721–723.

15. Lavery LA, Armstrong DG, Peters EJ, Lipsky BA. Probe-to-bone test for diagnosing diabetic foot osteomyelitis: reliable or relic? Diabetes Care. 2007;30(2):270–274.

16. Rajbhandari SM, Sutton M, Davies C, Tesfaye S, Ward JD. ‘Sausage toe’: a reliable sign of underlying osteomyelitis. Diabet Med. 2000;17(1):74–77.

17. Pellizzer G, Strazzabosco M, Presi S, et al. Deep tissue biopsy vs. superficial swab culture monitoring in the microbiological assessment of limb-threatening diabetic foot infection. Diabet Med. 2001;18(10):822–827.

18. 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(1):57–62.

19. Zuluaga AF, Galvis W, Saldarriaga JG, Agudelo M, Salazar BE, Vesga O. Etiologic diagnosis of chronic osteomyelitis: a prospective study. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(1):95–100.

20. Hirsch AT, Haskal ZJ, Hertzer NR, et al. ACC/AHA 2005 Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with peripheral arterial disease (lower extremity, renal, mesenteric, and abdominal aortic): a collaborative report from the American Association for Vascular Surgery/Society for Vascular Surgery, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology, Society of Interventional Radiology, and the ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease): endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Society for Vascular Nursing; TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus; and Vascular Disease Foundation. Circulation. 2006;113(11):e463–e654.

21. Pineda C, Vargas A, Rodriguez AV. Imaging of osteomyelitis: current concepts. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2006;20(4):789–825.

22. Termaat MF, Raijmakers PG, Scholten HJ, Bakker FC, Patka P, Haarman HJ. The accuracy of diagnostic imaging for the assessment of chronic osteomyelitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(11):2464–2471.

23. Kapoor A, Page S, Lavalley M, Gale DR, Felson DT. Magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing foot osteomyelitis: a meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(2):125–132.

24. Nelson EA, O'Meara S, Golder S, Dalton J, Craig D, Iglesias C, for the DASIDU Steering Group. Systematic review of antimicrobial treatments for diabetic foot ulcers. Diabet Med. 2006;23(4):348–359.

25. Clay PG, Graham MR, Lindsey CC, Lamp KC, Freeman C, Glaros A. Clinical efficacy, tolerability, and cost savings associated with the use of open-label metronidazole plus ceftriaxone once daily compared with ticarcillin/clavulanate every 6 hours as empiric treatment for diabetic lower-extremity infections in older males. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2004;2(3):181–189.

26. Lipsky BA, Armstrong DG, Citron DM, Tice AD, Morgenstern DE, Abramson MA. Ertapenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for diabetic foot infections (SIDESTEP): prospective, randomised, controlled, double-blinded, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2005;366(9498):1695–1703.

27. Lipsky BA, Itani K, Norden C, for the Linezolid Diabetic Foot Infections Study Group. Treating foot infections in diabetic patients: a randomized, multicenter, open-label trial of linezolid versus ampicillin-sulbac-tam/amoxicillin-clavulanate. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38(1):17–24.

28. Lipsky BA, Stoutenburgh U. Daptomycin for treating infected diabetic foot ulcers: evidence from a randomized, controlled trial comparing daptomycin with vancomycin or semi-synthetic penicillins for complicated skin and skin-structure infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2005;55(2):240–245.

29. Ellis-Grosse EJ, Babinchak T, Dartois N, Rose G, Loh E, for the Tigecycline 300 cSSSI Study Group, Tigecycline 305 cSSSI Study Group.. The efficacy and safety of tigecycline in the treatment of skin and skin-structure infections: results of 2 double-blind phase 3 comparison studies with vancomycinaztreonam. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41(suppl 5):S341–S353.

30. Lipsky BA, Giordano P, Choudhri S, Song J. Treating diabetic foot infections with sequential intravenous to oral moxifloxacin compared with piperacillin-tazobactam/amoxicillin-clavulanate. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007;60(2):370–376.

31. Chantelau E, Tanudjaja T, Altenhöfer F, Ersanli Z, Lacigova S, Metzger C. Antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated neuropathic forefoot ulcers in diabetes: a controlled trial. Diabet Med. 1996;13(2):156–159.

32. Tan JS, Friedman NM, Hazelton-Miller C, Flanagan JP, File TM Jr. Can aggressive treatment of diabetic foot infections reduce the need for above-ankle amputation? Clin Infect Dis. 1996;23(2):286–291.

33. Armstrong DG, Lavery LA, for the Diabetic Foot Study Consortium. Negative pressure wound therapy after partial diabetic foot amputation: a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;366(9498):1704–1710.

34. Faglia E, Clerici G, Caminiti M, Quarantiello A, Gino M, Morabito A. The role of early surgical debridement and revascularization in patients with diabetes and deep foot space abscess: retrospective review of 106 patients with diabetes. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2006;45(4):220–226.

35. Armstrong DG, Nguyen HC, Lavery LA, van Schie CH, Boulton AJ, Harkless LB. Off-loading the diabetic foot wound: a randomized clinical trial [published correction appears in Diabetes Care. 2001;24(8):1509]. Diabetes Care. 2001;24(6):1019–1022.

36. Spencer S. Pressure relieving interventions for preventing and treating diabetic foot ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(3):CD002302.

37. Armstrong DG, Nguyen HC. Improvement in healing with aggressive edema reduction after debridement of foot infection in persons with diabetes. Arch Surg. 2000;135(12):1405–1409.

38. Rubinstein A, Pierce CE Jr. Rapid healing of diabetic foot ulcers with meticulous blood glucose control. Acta Diabetol Lat. 1988;25(1):25–32.

39. American Diabetes Association. Preventive foot care in people with diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2002;25(suppl 1):S69–S70.

40. Singh N, Armstrong DG, Lipsky BA. Preventing foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. JAMA. 2005;293(2):217–228.


Copyright © 2008 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact afpserv@aafp.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.

Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions


Article Tools

  • Download PDF
  • Print page
  • Share this page
  • AFP CME Quiz

Information From Industry

More in AFP

More in Pubmed

Navigate this Article