Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in diabetic and non-diabetic foot infections

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

To identify the incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection, reinfection and clinical outcomes. Four hundred forty-six patients that were admitted to the hospital with moderate or severe foot infections were retrospectively reviewed. Tissue and bone cultures were obtained from the index hospital admission. Conversion was defined as methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus in the first culture and subsequently MRSA when there was a reinfection. The incidence of MRSA was 7.8% (n = 35), with no significant difference between soft tissue infections (7.7%) and osteomyelitis (8.0%). MRSA incidence was 9.4 times higher in non-diabetics (23.8% vs. 3.2%, p = <0.01). The incidence of reinfection was 40.8% (n = 182). Conversion to MRSA was seen in 2.2% (n = 4) total, occurring in 5.4%. Non-diabetics were 20.1 times more likely to have MRSA reinfection than people with diabetes (28.6% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001). MRSA patients had a higher proportion of healed wounds (82.4% vs. 69.3%, p = 0.02). There were no differences in other clinical outcomes in MRSA vs. other infections in reinfection (28.6% vs. 24.3%, p = 0.11), amputation (48.6% vs. 52.0%, p = 0.69) or hospitalization (28.6% vs. 42.6, p = 0.11). The incidence of MRSA for the first infection (7.8%), reinfection (6.0%) and conversion to MRSA (2.2%) was low. MRSA was 9.4 times more common in people without diabetes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere70039
JournalInternational Wound Journal
Volume21
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2024

Keywords

  • amputation
  • diabetes
  • infection
  • osteomyelitis
  • ulcer

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Dermatology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in diabetic and non-diabetic foot infections'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this