Bacteriological profile and antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of diabetic foot ulcers: a prospective cross-sectional study.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51168/0ng1nn89Keywords:
antimicrobial resistance, bacterial culture, diabetic foot infection, diabetic foot ulcer, multidrug resistance, Staphylococcus aureusAbstract
Background
Diabetic foot ulcers are a major source of infection-related morbidity, prolonged hospitalisation and lower-limb amputation. Their microbial spectrum varies across settings, while antimicrobial resistance increasingly limits empirical treatment.
Objectives
To characterise the bacteriological profile of clinically infected diabetic foot ulcers and determine the antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of recovered bacterial isolates in a tertiary-care hospital.
Methods
This prospective cross-sectional study included 71 adults with type 2 diabetes and clinically infected foot ulcers presenting from January to December 2024. Deep wound swabs, aspirated pus or tissue specimens were collected after wound preparation and processed by conventional culture and biochemical methods. Antimicrobial susceptibility was assessed by Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion using contemporaneous Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute criteria. Multidrug resistance was defined as non-susceptibility to at least one agent in three or more antimicrobial categories.
Results
Significant bacterial growth was obtained from 62 of 71 specimens (87.3%). Staphylococcus aureus was the most frequent isolate (24.2%), followed by Escherichia coli (17.7%), Proteus species (16.1%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (12.9%). Polymicrobial infection occurred in 21.0% of culture-positive cases. Five of 15 S. aureus isolates (33.3%) were methicillin resistant. Resistance among E. coli was highest to amoxicillin-clavulanate (72.7%) and cotrimoxazole (54.5%), whereas meropenem and levofloxacin showed comparatively lower resistance (27.3% each). Overall, 19 isolates (30.6%) met the multidrug-resistance definition.
Conclusion
Clinically infected diabetic foot ulcers in this setting contained mixed bacterial flora with a substantial antimicrobial-resistance burden. Culture-directed therapy should accompany timely debridement, glycaemic optimisation and structured wound care.
Recommendations
Local antibiograms should be updated periodically, and empirical regimens should be reviewed promptly after culture results become available.
References
1. Armstrong DG, Boulton AJM, Bus SA. Diabetic foot ulcers and their recurrence. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(24):2367-2375.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1615439
2. Armstrong DG, Tan TW, Boulton AJM, Bus SA. Diabetic foot ulcers: a review. JAMA. 2023;330(1):62-75.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.10578
3. Senneville É, Albalawi Z, van Asten SA, Abbas ZG, Allison G, Aragón-Sánchez J, et al. IWGDF/IDSA guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes-related foot infections. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2024;40(3):e3687.
https://doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.3687
4. Kateel R, Augustine AJ, Prabhu S, Ullal S, Pai M, Adhikari P. Clinical and microbiological profile of diabetic foot ulcer patients in a tertiary care hospital. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2018;12(1):27-30.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2017.08.008
5. Satpathy AS, Patnaik B, Mohapatra KC. Prospective observational study of microbiology of infected diabetic foot ulcers in a tertiary-care hospital. Cureus. 2024;16(10):e71705.
https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.71705
6. Saseedharan S, Sahu M, Chaddha R, Pathrose E, Bal A, Bhalekar P, et al. Epidemiology of diabetic foot infections in a reference tertiary hospital in India. Braz J Microbiol. 2018;49(2):401-406.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjm.2017.09.003
7. Goh TC, Bajuri MY, Nadarajah SC, Abdul Rashid AH, Baharuddin S, Zamri KS. Clinical and bacteriological profile of diabetic foot infections in a tertiary care. J Foot Ankle Res. 2020;13(1):36.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13047-020-00406-y
8. Macdonald KE, Boeckh S, Stacey HJ, Jones JD. The microbiology of diabetic foot infections: a meta-analysis. BMC Infect Dis. 2021;21(1):770.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-06516-7
9. Singh AK, Yeola M, Singh N, Damke S. A study on diabetic foot ulcers in Central rural India to formulate empiric antimicrobial therapy. J Family Med Prim Care. 2020;9(8):4216-4222.
https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_700_20
10. Banu A, Noorul Hassan MM, Rajkumar J, Srinivasa S. Spectrum of bacteria associated with diabetic foot ulcer and biofilm formation: a prospective study. Australas Med J. 2015;8(9):280-285.
https://doi.org/10.4066/AMJ.2015.2422
11. Citron DM, Goldstein EJC, Merriam CV, 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):2819-2828.
https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00551-07
12. Zubair M, Malik A, Ahmad J. Clinico-microbiological study and antimicrobial drug resistance profile of diabetic foot infections in North India. Foot (Edinb). 2011;21(1):6-14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foot.2010.10.003
13. Magiorakos AP, Srinivasan A, Carey RB, Carmeli Y, Falagas ME, Giske CG, et al. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pandrug-resistant bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012;18(3):268-281.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03570.x
14. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. 34th ed. CLSI supplement M100. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2024.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Dr .Thannuri Fanindra, Dr .S Ruth Ramya, Dr. Aditi Tomer Thakur, Dr. Taruni, Dr. R Kondal Rao, Dr. Nagasaikaran Sade
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
