Our analysis found no threshold for the optimal duration or route of administration of antibiotic therapy to prevent recurrences of DFI. These limited data might support possibly shorter treatment duration for patients with DFI.

Aim: To assess amoxicillin-clavulanate (AMC) for the oral therapy of diabetic foot infections (DFIs), especially for diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO). Methods:We performed a retrospective cohort analysis among 794 DFI episodes, including 339 DFO cases. Results:The median duration of antibiotic therapy after surgical debridement (including partial amputation) was 30 days (DFO, 30 days). Oral AMC was prescribed for a median of 20 days (interquartile range, 12-30 days). The median ratio of oral AMC among the entire antibiotic treatment was 0.9 (interquartile range, 0.7-1.0). After a median follow-up of 3.3 years, 178 DFIs (22%) overall recurred (DFO, 75; 22%). Overall, oral AMC led to 74% remission compared with 79% with other regimens (χ 2 -test; P = 0.15). In multivariate analyses and stratified subgroup analyses, oral AMC resulted in similar clinical outcomes to other antimicrobial regimens, when used orally from the start, after an initial parenteral therapy, or when prescribed for DFO.Conclusions: Oral AMC is a reasonable option when treating patients with DFIs and DFOs. K E Y W O R D Samoxillin-clavunalate, diabetic foot infections, failures, oral β-lactams, osteomyelitis

After the successful treatment of a DFI, recurrent episodes are frequent. A history of a previous DFI episode did not predict a greater likelihood of any antibiotic-resistant isolate in subsequent episodes. Thus, broadening the spectrum of empiric antibiotic therapy for recurrent episodes of DFI does not appear necessary.

Summary Objective The appropriate duration of antibiotic therapy for diabetic foot infections (DFI) after surgical amputations in toto is debated. There are discrepancies worldwide. Methods Using a clinical pathway for adult DFI patients (retrospective cohort analysis), we conducted a cluster‐controlled Cox regression analysis. Minimum follow‐up was 2 months. Results We followed 482 amputated DFI episodes for a median of 2.1 years after the index episode. The DFIs predominately affected the forefoot (n = 433; 90%). We diagnosed osteomyelitis in 239 cases (239/482; 50%). In total, 47 cases (10%) were complicated by bacteremia, 86 (18%) by abscesses and 139 (29%) presented with cellulitis. Surgical amputation involved the toes (n = 155), midfoot (280) and hindfoot (47). Overall, 178 cases (37%) required revascularization. After amputation, the median duration of antibiotic administration was 7 days (interquartile range, 1‐16 days). In 109 cases (25%), antibiotics were discontinued immediately after surgery. Overall, clinical failure occurred in 90 DFIs (17%), due to the same pathogens in only 38 cases. In multivariate analysis, neither duration of total postsurgical antibiotic administration (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.99‐1.01) nor immediate postoperative discontinuation altered failure rate (HR 0.9, 0.5‐1.5). Conclusion According to our clinical pathway, we found no benefit in continuing postsurgical antibiotic administration in routine amputation for DFI. In the absence of residual infection (ie, resection at clear margins), antibiotics should be discontinued.

Background Healthcare-associated infections (HAI) are one of the gravest threats to patient safety worldwide. The importance of the hospital environment has recently been revalued in infection prevention and control. Though the literature is evolving rapidly, many institutions still do not consider healthcare environmental hygiene (HEH) very important for patient safety. The evidence for interventions in the healthcare environment on patient colonization and HAI with multidrug-resistant microorganisms (MDROs) or other epidemiologically relevant pathogens was reviewed. Methods We performed a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines using the PubMed and Web of Science databases. All original studies were eligible if published before December 31, 2019, and if the effect of an HEH intervention on HAI or patient colonization was measured. Studies were not eligible if they were conducted in vitro, did not include patient colonization or HAI as an outcome, were bundled with hand hygiene interventions, included a complete structural rebuild of the healthcare facility or were implemented during an outbreak. The primary outcome was the comparison of the intervention on patient colonization or HAI compared to baseline or control. Interventions were categorized by mechanical, chemical, human factors, or bundles. Study quality was assessed using a specifically-designed tool that considered study design, sample size, control, confounders, and issues with reporting. The effect of HEH interventions on environmental bioburden was studied as a secondary outcome. Findings After deduplication, 952 records were scrutinized, of which 44 were included for full text assessment. A total of 26 articles were included in the review and analyzed. Most studies demonstrated a reduction of patient colonization or HAI, and all that analyzed bioburden demonstrated a reduction following the HEH intervention. Studies tested mechanical interventions (n = 8), chemical interventions (n = 7), human factors interventions (n = 3), and bundled interventions (n = 8). The majority of studies (21/26, 81%) analyzed either S. aureus, C. difficile, and/or vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Most studies (23/26, 88%) reported a decrease of MDRO-colonization or HAI for at least one of the tested organisms, while 58% reported a significant decrease of MDRO-colonization or HAI for all tested microorganisms. Forty-two percent were of good quality according to the scoring system. The majority (21/26, 81%) of study interventions were recommended for application by the authors. Studies were often not powered adequately to measure statistically significant reductions. Interpretation Improving HEH helps keep patients safe. Most studies demonstrated that interventions in the hospital environment were related with lower HAI and/or patient colonization. Most of the studies were not of high quality; additional adequately-powered, high-quality studies are needed. Systematic registration number: CRD42020204909