南方医科大学学报 ›› 2015, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (12): 1782-.

• • 上一篇    下一篇

糖尿病足合并骨髓炎创面病原菌分布及危险因素分析

黄莺,曹瑛,邹梦晨,李文霞,罗祥蓉,蒋娅,薛耀明,高方   

  • 出版日期:2015-12-20 发布日期:2015-12-20

Distribution of pathogens in diabetic foot osteomyelitis and risk factors of osteomyelitis

  • Online:2015-12-20 Published:2015-12-20

摘要: 目的探讨合并骨髓炎的糖尿病足感染病原菌分布、耐药性特点及其危险因素。方法收集我院2011年1月~2014年12月
372 例糖尿病足感染住院患者的病历资料,根据有无合并骨髓炎分为有骨髓炎(OM)组(54.6%)及无骨髓炎组(Non-OM)组
(45.4%),比较组间创面感染病原菌分布及耐药性特点,用Logistic回归分析发生骨髓炎的危险因素。结果OM组以革兰阴性
(G-)菌感染为主(53.7%),而Non-OM 组以革兰阳性菌(G+)菌感染占优势(56.7%)(P=0.001)。G+菌以葡萄球菌属最常见
(35.1%),OM组中葡萄球菌对苯唑西林、头孢西丁的耐药率(64.9%、68.5%)显著高于Non-OM组(29.2%、32.6%)(P<0.05)。G-
菌以肠杆菌为主(62.4%),OM组中肠杆菌对头孢吡肟、氨曲南的耐药率(30.1%、38.6%)显著高于Non-OM组(15.1%、22.2%)
(P<0.05)。Logistic 回归分析显示多重耐药菌感染及创面大于4 cm2是糖尿病足患者发生骨髓炎的危险因素(P<0.05)。结论
对糖尿病足合并骨髓炎患者经验性抗感染治疗时,可根据创面病原菌分布及耐药性特征选择覆盖G-菌的抗生素,对于感染多重
耐药菌及伤口面积>4 cm2的患者应警惕骨髓炎的发生。

Abstract: Objective To explore the distribution and antibiotic resistance of pathogens in lesions of diabetic foot osteomyelitis
(DFO) and analyze the risk factors causing osteomyelitis. Methods A total of 372 patients with diabetic foot infections
hospitalized between January 2011 and December 2014, including 203 with osteomyelitis (OM group) and 169 without
osteomyelitis (non-OM group), were examined for the distribution and antibiotic resistance profile of the pathogens in the
wounds. Logistic regression analysis was used to analyze the risk factors causing osteomyelitis. Results Gram-negative
bacteria were the predominant pathogens (53.7%) in the infected wounds in OM group, whereas Gram-positive bacteria were
the most frequently found (56.7%) in non-OM group (P=0.001). Among the Gram-positive bacteria, Staphylococcus was the
dominating flora (35.1%). The resistance rate to oxacillin and cefoxitin of the isolated bacteria in OM group (64.9% and 68.5%,
respectively) was significantly higher than that in non-OM group (29.2% and 32.6% , respectively; P<0.05). Among the
gram-negative bacteria, Enterobacteriaceae was the dominating flora (62.4%), with a higher resistance rate to Cefepime and
Aztreonam in OM group (30.1% and 38.6%, respectively) than in non-OM group (15.1% and 22.2%, respectively; P<0.05).
Logistic regression analysis indicated that the infection by multi-drug resistant bacteria and an wounds area >4 cm2 were the
risk factors for osteomyelitis in patients with diabetic foot infections (P<0.05). Conclusions In addition to an empirical
anti-infection therapy, clinicians should choose specific antibiotics against Gram-negative bacteria according to the microbial
spectrum and antibiotic resistance of pathogens in patients with DFO; patients with diabetic foot infections by multi-drug
resistant bacteria and those with a wound area exceeding 4 cm2 are exposed to an increased risk of osteomyelitis.