This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Harold Rosen, MD
Cincinnati

Arch Intern Med. 1987;147(3):615.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—In the October issue of the ARCHIVES, Wheat et al¹ published a timely and interesting article regarding foot infections in diabetic patients. They report the bacteriologic findings of 131 diabetic foot infections, and also the percentage of patients whose bacterial isolates were susceptible to various antibiotics, singly and in various combinations. For instance, they say that cefazolin sodium would have adequately treated 41% of their patients; cefoxitin sodium, 58% of their patients; moxalactam disodium, 68% of their patients; cefoxitin with ampicillin sodium, 74% of their patients; ticarcillin disodium and clavulanic acid, 85% of their patients; moxalactam with ampicillin, 94% of their patients; cefoxitin with ampicillin and an aminoglycoside, 96% of their patients; and imipenem sodium, 100% of their patients.

Some infectious disease experts recommend cefazolin with metronidazole as an inexpensive empiric treatment for diabetic foot infections, pending cultures. I would be curious about the percentage of . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?