Pseudomonal Diabetic Foot Infections: Vive la Différence?

Objective: To assess the outcomes of diabetic foot infections (DFIs) due to .

Patients And Methods: From April 24, 2013 to July 31, 2016, we analyzed data from patients prospectively enrolled in our clinical pathway of DFIs, comparing those with infection due to with those without infection due to .

Results: Overall, we assessed 1018 cases of DFIs: 392 with osteomyelitis and 626 with only soft tissue infections. The prevalence of in deep wound cultures was 10% (104/1018); of the 1018 cultures, 22 were monomicrobial, 82 were polymicrobial, and 46 were with osteomyelitis. Overall, the patients were treated with a median of 1 surgical debridement and a total of 20 days of antibiotic therapy. In a comparison of crude groups, the proportion of clinical failures was significantly higher with than with other pathogens (36/104 [35%] vs 218/914 [24%], respectively; =.02). A multivariate analysis showed that pseudomonal DFIs did not recur more often than nonpseudomonal DFIs (hazard ratio, 1.0; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-1.7). Among the 104 cases of pseudomonal DFIs, there was no association between failure of treatment and the total duration of antibiotic therapy, duration of intravenous therapy, duration of combined antibiotic therapy with more than 1 agent, or duration of oral (fluoroquinolone) therapy. Among 15 cases of pseudomonal recurrence, 2 (13%) developed resistance to the antibiotic agent used for the index episode.

Conclusion: For DFIs caused by , other than choosing an antibiotic agent that is active against the organism, it does not appear necessary to treat with a different therapeutic regimen compared with the treatment of nonpseudomonal DFIs. There is no difference!