Serum Procalcitonin (PCT) - Is there a Role as an Early Biomarker in Infected Diabetic Foot Ulcer (IDFU) Patients?

@#Introduction: Infected diabetic foot ulcers may lead to serious complications if not recognised in the early stage. Diagnosis of infection is particularly challenging at that stage; thus, a sensitive inflammatory biomarker may be helpful. We aimed to evaluate the role of procalcitonin (PCT) as an early biomarker for infected diabetic foot ulcers (IDFU). Materials and method: This cross-sectional study was conducted at Klinik Rawatan Keluarga (KRK), Orthopedic clinic and wards in Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) from May 2020 to December 2020. A total of 264 participants were recruited and divided into three groups: 50 diabetic patients with no ulcers (control), 107 patients with non-infected diabetic foot ulcers (NIDFU), and 107 patients with infected diabetic foot ulcers (IDFU). The level of PCT was taken for all patients. Total white count (TWC) and Creactive protein (CRP) were taken only for IDFU patients. Diagnosis of infection was based on the Infectious Disease Society of America-International Working Group of Diabetic Foot (IDSA-IMWGDF), and the severity of infection was graded according to the Wagner Classification. Results: The level of PCT was higher in IDFU than in NIDFU and diabetic patient, with a median (IQR) of 0.355 (0.63) ng/mL, 0.077 (0.15) ng/mL and 0.028 (0.02) ng/mL, respectively. PCT and CRP showed moderate positive correlations in IDFU patients (p<0.001). The sensitivity and specificity were 63.6% and 83.2%, respectively, at the best cut-off at 0.25 ng/mL. Conclusion: PCT is a valuable biomarker for the diagnosis of infection; however, it adds little value in the early diagnosis of IDFU in view of its low sensitivity.

Is Procalcitonin more superior to hs-CRP in the diagnosis of infection in diabetic foot ulcer?

@#Introduction: Procalcitonin (PCT) has recently emerged as a marker for diagnosing infection. This study aimed to compare the performance of PCT and other infection markers in diagnosing infected diabetic foot ulcer (IDFU). Materials and Methods: A total of 128 diabetic patients with foot ulcers were recruited and divided into two groups, consisting of 73 patients in the IDFU group and 55 in the non-infected diabetic foot ulcer (NIDFU). The severity of infection in IDFU patients was graded based on the Infectious Disease Society of America-International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot classification. Blood samples from all the patients were collected for measurement of PCT, high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and white cell count (WBC). The area under the receiver operating curves (AUC) were then constructed and analysed. Results: PCT, hs-CRP and WBC levels were significantly higher in the IDFU group compared to NIDFU with hs-CRP demonstrated the highest AUC (0.91; p <0.001) followed by PCT (0.814; p < 0.001) and lastly WBC (0.775; p < 0.001). The best cut off value, sensitivity and specificity for the presence of infection in diabetic foot, were 3.47 mg/dL, 80% and 89% for hs-CRP, 0.11 ng/ml, 70% and 87% for PCT and 11.8x109/L, 60% and 90% for WBC. All the infection markers showed significant positive correlations with infection severity of DFU. Conclusion: This study showed that hs-CRP is a more sensitive marker for diagnosing IDFU. Although PCT is useful in differentiating IDFU from NIDFU, the use of PCT is not necessary as it adds little value to the current practice.

Microbiology and Antibiotic Selection for Diabetic Foot Infections / 대한족부족관절학회지

PURPOSE: To help the empirical antibiotics selection in diabetic foot infection patients, we investigated prevalence of microorganisms and their antibiotics sensitivity results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who came to our clinics to treat diabetic foot infections with deep ulceration and were followed up more than 6 months until complete recovery were adopted. From March 2006 to June 2009, there were 140 patients who corresponded with such a inclusion criteria. Wound cultures were done by deep tissue or bone debris at first visit to our clinics. Microorganisms which was documented by wound culture and most susceptible antibiotics by minimum inhibitory concentrations were surveyed retrospectively. RESULTS: Microorganisms were confirmed in 113 cases (80.7%). In the other 27 cases (19.3%), there were no cultured microorganisms. In bacterial growth group, there were 72 cases (63.7%) of gram-positive bacteria and 41 cases (36.3%) of gramnegative bacteria. All of them were aerobic microorganisms and there were no anaerobic microorganisms. Methicillin-sensitive staphylococcus aureus was the most common pathogen and accounted for 35 cases (31.0%). As other common pathogens, there were Enterobacter cloacae (11 cases, 9.7%), pseudomonas aeruginosa (10 cases, 8.8%), Methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (10 cases, 8.8%) and enterococcus faecalis (6 cases, 5.3%), and so on. Common susceptible antibiotics in gram positive microorganism were vancomycin (60 cases, 83.3%), teicoplanin (60 cases, 83.3%), nitrofurantoin (60 cases, 83.3%) and ciprofloxacin (53 cases, 73.6%). In gram negative ones, common susceptible antibiotics were imipenem (35 cases, 85.3%), piperacillin/tazobactam (33 cases, 80.5%) and gentamicin (31 cases, 75.6%). CONCLUSION: Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus in gram positive and enterobacter cloacae in gram negative was the most common pathogen in each group. Ciprofloxacin and gentamicin might be adaptable as a first-line empirical antibiotics in infected diabetic foot patients.

Evaluation of infected diabetic foot

Diabetes and diabetic foot is an increasing threatening for community. In the case of diabetic foot, it’s necessary to evaluate accurately and appropriately so that there may be effective therapy. Till now, preservation is a great challenge in the treatment, which distal bypass surgery and advances in excision, amputation and local treatment were gradually striving for gaining