Definitions and criteria for diabetes-related foot disease (IWGDF 2023 update).

Multiple disciplines are involved in the management of diabetes-related foot disease and a common vocabulary is essential for clear communication. Based on the systematic reviews of the literature that form the basis of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) Guidelines, the IWGDF has developed a set of definitions and criteria for diabetes-related foot disease. This document describes the 2023 update of these definitions and criteria. We suggest these definitions be used consistently in both clinical practice and research, to facilitate clear communication with people with diabetes-related foot disease and between professionals around the world.

IWGDF/IDSA guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes-related foot infections (IWGDF/IDSA 2023).

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence-based guidelines on the management and prevention of diabetes-related foot diseases since 1999. The present guideline is an update of the 2019 IWGDF guideline on the diagnosis and management of foot infections in persons with diabetes mellitus. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used for the development of this guideline. This was structured around identifying clinically relevant questions in the P(A)ICO format, determining patient-important outcomes, systematically reviewing the evidence, assessing the certainty of the evidence, and finally moving from evidence to the recommendation. This guideline was developed for healthcare professionals involved in diabetes-related foot care to inform clinical care around patient-important outcomes. Two systematic reviews from 2019 were updated to inform this guideline, and a total of 149 studies (62 new) meeting inclusion criteria were identified from the updated search and incorporated in this guideline. Updated recommendations are derived from these systematic reviews, and best practice statements made where evidence was not available. Evidence was weighed in light of benefits and harms to arrive at a recommendation. The certainty of the evidence for some recommendations was modified in this update with a more refined application of the GRADE framework centred around patient important outcomes. This is highlighted in the rationale section of this update. A note is also made where the newly identified evidence did not alter the strength or certainty of evidence for previous recommendations. The recommendations presented here continue to cover various aspects of diagnosing soft tissue and bone infections, including the classification scheme for diagnosing infection and its severity. Guidance on how to collect microbiological samples, and how to process them to identify causative pathogens, is also outlined. Finally, we present the approach to treating foot infections in persons with diabetes, including selecting appropriate empiric and definitive antimicrobial therapy for soft tissue and bone infections; when and how to approach surgical treatment; and which adjunctive treatments may or may not affect the infectious outcomes of diabetes-related foot problems. We believe that following these recommendations will help healthcare professionals provide better care for persons with diabetes and foot infections, prevent the number of foot and limb amputations, and reduce the patient and healthcare burden of diabetes-related foot disease.

Diagnosis of infection in the foot of patients with diabetes: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Securing an early accurate diagnosis of diabetic foot infections and assessment of their severity are of paramount importance since these infections can cause great morbidity and potential mortality and present formidable challenges in surgical and antimicrobial treatment. METHODS: In June 2022, we searched the literature using PubMed and EMBASE for published studies on the diagnosis of diabetic foot infection (DFI). On the basis of pre-determined criteria, we reviewed prospective controlled, as well as non-controlled, studies in English. We then developed evidence statements based on the included papers. RESULTS: We selected a total of 64 papers that met our inclusion criteria. The certainty of the majority of the evidence statements was low because of the weak methodology of nearly all of the studies. The available data suggest that diagnosing diabetic foot infections on the basis of clinical signs and symptoms and classified according to the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot/Infectious Diseases Society of America scheme correlates with the patient's likelihood of the need for hospitalisation, lower extremity amputation, and risk of death. Elevated levels of selected serum inflammatory markers such as erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein and procalcitonin are supportive, but not diagnostic, of soft tissue infection. Culturing tissue samples of soft tissues or bone, when care is taken to avoid contamination, provides more accurate microbiological information than culturing superficial (swab) samples. Although non-culture techniques, especially next-generation sequencing, are likely to identify more bacteria from tissue samples including bone than standard cultures, no studies have established a significant impact on the management of patients with DFIs. In patients with suspected diabetic foot osteomyelitis, the combination of a positive probe-to-bone test and elevated ESR supports this diagnosis. Plain X-ray remains the first-line imaging examination when there is suspicion of diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO), but advanced imaging methods including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and nuclear imaging when MRI is not feasible help in cases when either the diagnosis or the localisation of infection is uncertain. Intra-operative or non-per-wound percutaneous biopsy is the best method to accurately identify bone pathogens in case of a suspicion of a DFO. Bedside percutaneous biopsies are effective and safe and are an option to obtain bone culture data when conventional (i.e. surgical or radiological) procedures are not feasible. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review of the diagnosis of diabetic foot infections provide some guidance for clinicians, but there is still a need for more prospective controlled studies of high quality.

Interventions in the management of diabetes-related foot infections: A systematic review.

The optimal approaches to managing diabetic foot infections remain a challenge for clinicians. Despite an exponential rise in publications investigating different treatment strategies, the various agents studied generally produce comparable results, and high-quality data are scarce. In this systematic review, we searched the medical literature using the PubMed and Embase databases for published studies on the treatment of diabetic foot infections from 30 June 2018 to 30 June 2022. We combined this search with our previous literature search of a systematic review performed in 2020, in which the infection committee of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot searched the literature until June 2018. We defined the context of the literature by formulating clinical questions of interest, then developing structured clinical questions (Patients-Intervention-Control-Outcomes) to address these. We only included data from controlled studies of an intervention to prevent or cure a diabetic foot infection. Two independent reviewers selected articles for inclusion and then assessed their relevant outcomes and methodological quality. Our literature search identified a total of 5,418 articles, of which we selected 32 for full-text review. Overall, the newly available studies we identified since 2018 do not significantly modify the body of the 2020 statements for the interventions in the management of diabetes-related foot infections. The recent data confirm that outcomes in patients treated with the different antibiotic regimens for both skin and soft tissue infection and osteomyelitis of the diabetes-related foot are broadly equivalent across studies, with a few exceptions (tigecycline not non-inferior to ertapenem [±vancomycin]). The newly available data suggest that antibiotic therapy following surgical debridement for moderate or severe infections could be reduced to 10 days and to 3 weeks for osteomyelitis following surgical debridement of bone. Similar outcomes were reported in studies comparing primarily surgical and predominantly antibiotic treatment strategies in selected patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis. There is insufficient high-quality evidence to assess the effect of various recent adjunctive therapies, such as cold plasma for infected foot ulcers and bioactive glass for osteomyelitis. Our updated systematic review confirms a trend to a better quality of the most recent trials and the need for further well-designed trials to produce higher quality evidence to underpin our recommendations.

IWGDF/IDSA Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Diabetes-related Foot Infections (IWGDF/IDSA 2023).

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence-based guidelines on the management and prevention of diabetes-related foot diseases since 1999. The present guideline is an update of the 2019 IWGDF guideline on the diagnosis and management of foot infections in persons with diabetes mellitus. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used for the development of this guideline. This was structured around identifying clinically relevant questions in the P(A)ICO format, determining patient-important outcomes, systematically reviewing the evidence, assessing the certainty of the evidence, and finally moving from evidence to the recommendation. This guideline was developed for healthcare professionals involved in diabetes-related foot care to inform clinical care around patient-important outcomes. Two systematic reviews from 2019 were updated to inform this guideline, and a total of 149 studies (62 new) meeting inclusion criteria were identified from the updated search and incorporated in this guideline. Updated recommendations are derived from these systematic reviews, and best practice statements made where evidence was not available. Evidence was weighed in light of benefits and harms to arrive at a recommendation. The certainty of the evidence for some recommendations was modified in this update with a more refined application of the GRADE framework centred around patient important outcomes. This is highlighted in the rationale section of this update. A note is also made where the newly identified evidence did not alter the strength or certainty of evidence for previous recommendations. The recommendations presented here continue to cover various aspects of diagnosing soft tissue and bone infections, including the classification scheme for diagnosing infection and its severity. Guidance on how to collect microbiological samples, and how to process them to identify causative pathogens, is also outlined. Finally, we present the approach to treating foot infections in persons with diabetes, including selecting appropriate empiric and definitive antimicrobial therapy for soft tissue and bone infections; when and how to approach surgical treatment; and which adjunctive treatments may or may not affect the infectious outcomes of diabetes-related foot problems. We believe that following these recommendations will help healthcare professionals provide better care for persons with diabetes and foot infections, prevent the number of foot and limb amputations, and reduce the patient and healthcare burden of diabetes-related foot disease.

An integrated personalized assistive devices approach to reduce the risk of foot ulcer recurrence in diabetes (DIASSIST): study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Preventing foot ulcers in people with diabetes can increase quality of life and reduce costs. Despite the availability of various interventions to prevent foot ulcers, recurrence rates remain high. We hypothesize that a multimodal treatment approach incorporating various footwear, self-management, and education interventions that matches an individual person's needs can reduce the risk of ulcer recurrence with beneficial cost-utility. The aim of this study is to assess the effect on foot ulcer recurrence, footwear adherence, and cost-utility of an integrated personalized assistive devices approach in high-risk people with diabetes. METHODS: In a parallel-group multicenter randomized controlled trial, 126 adult participants with diabetes mellitus type 1 or 2, loss of protective sensation based on the presence of peripheral neuropathy, a healed plantar foot ulcer in the preceding 4 years, and possession of any type of custom-made footwear will be included. Participants will be randomly assigned to either enhanced therapy or usual care. Enhanced therapy consists of usual care and additionally a personalized treatment approach including pressure-optimized custom-made footwear, pressure-optimized custom-made footwear for indoor use, at-home daily foot temperature monitoring, and structured education, which includes motivational interviewing and personalized feedback on adherence and self-care. Participants will be followed for 12 months. Assessments include barefoot and in-shoe plantar pressure measurements; questionnaires concerning quality of life, costs, disease, and self-care knowledge; physical activity and footwear use monitoring; and clinical monitoring for foot ulcer outcomes. The study is powered for 3 primary outcomes: foot ulcer recurrence, footwear adherence, and cost-utility, the primary clinical, patient-related, and health-economic outcome respectively. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to integrate multiple interventions for ulcer prevention into a personalized state-of-the-art treatment approach and assess their combined efficacy in a randomized controlled trial in people with diabetes at high ulcer risk. Proven effectiveness, usability, and cost-utility will facilitate implementation in healthcare, improve the quality of life of high-risk people with diabetes, and reduce treatment costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05236660. Registered on 11 February 2022.

Recent infection with HCoV-OC43 may be associated with protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Antibodies against seasonal human coronaviruses (HCoVs) are known to cross-react with SARS-CoV-2, but data on cross-protective effects of prior HCoV infections are conflicting. In a prospective cohort of healthcare workers (HCWs), we studied the association between seasonal HCoV (OC43, HKU1, 229E and NL63) nucleocapsid protein IgG and SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first pandemic wave in the Netherlands (March 2020 - June 2020), by 4-weekly serum sampling. HCW with HCoV-OC43 antibody levels in the highest quartile, were less likely to become SARS-CoV-2 seropositive when compared with those with lower levels (6/32, 18.8%, versus 42/97, 43.3%, respectively: p = 0.019; HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16-0.88). We found no significant association with HCoV-OC43 spike protein IgG, or with antibodies against other HCoVs. Our results indicate that the high levels of HCoV-OC43-nucleocapsid antibodies, as an indicator of a recent infection, are associated with protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection; this supports and informs efforts to develop pancoronavirus vaccines.

[Histoplasmosis in a patient with sarcoidosis]. / Histoplasmose bij een patiënt met sarcoïdose.

BACKGROUND: Histoplasmosis is an infection caused by inhalation of spores of the fungus Histoplasma capsulatum. H. capsulatum is not present in the Netherlands but can cause severe disseminated disease in the immunocompromised traveller, with high mortality rate, especially when diagnosis is delayed. Therefore, early recognition is crucial. However, similarities with other infectious diseases, haematological malignancies and auto-immune diseases make timely diagnosis difficult. CASE DESCRIPTION: We present a case of a 39-year-old immunocompromised male traveller who presented with disseminated histoplasmosis after a trip to Central America. The diagnosis was made a few months after the first symptoms occurred. He died despite adequate treatment with liposomal amphotericin B. CONCLUSION: Disseminated histoplasmosis should be considered as a cause of unexplained fever in immunocompromised patients who travelled to endemic regions. Mortality is high, even when properly treated. Early recognition and treatment improve outcome.

Serologic Surveillance and Phylogenetic Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Hospital Health Care Workers.

Importance: It is unclear when, where, and by whom health care workers (HCWs) working in hospitals are infected with SARS-CoV-2. Objective: To determine how often and in what manner nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection occurs in HCW groups with varying exposure to patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study comprised 4 weekly measurements of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies and collection of questionnaires from March 23 to June 25, 2020, combined with phylogenetic and epidemiologic transmission analyses at 2 university hospitals in the Netherlands. Included individuals were HCWs working in patient care for those with COVID-19, HCWs working in patient care for those without COVID-19, and HCWs not working in patient care. Data were analyzed from August through December 2020. Exposures: Varying work-related exposure to patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. Main Outcomes and Measures: The cumulative incidence of and time to SARS-CoV-2 infection, defined as the presence of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in blood samples, were measured. Results: Among 801 HCWs, there were 439 HCWs working in patient care for those with COVID-19, 164 HCWs working in patient care for those without COVID-19, and 198 HCWs not working in patient care. There were 580 (72.4%) women, and the median (interquartile range) age was 36 (29-50) years. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 was increased among HCWs working in patient care for those with COVID-19 (54 HCWs [13.2%; 95% CI, 9.9%-16.4%]) compared with HCWs working in patient care for those without COVID-19 (11 HCWs [6.7%; 95% CI, 2.8%-10.5%]; hazard ratio [HR], 2.25; 95% CI, 1.17-4.30) and HCWs not working in patient care (7 HCWs [3.6%; 95% CI, 0.9%-6.1%]; HR, 3.92; 95% CI, 1.79-8.62). Among HCWs caring for patients with COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 cumulative incidence was increased among HCWs working on COVID-19 wards (32 of 134 HCWs [25.7%; 95% CI, 17.6%-33.1%]) compared with HCWs working on intensive care units (13 of 186 HCWs [7.1%; 95% CI, 3.3%-10.7%]; HR, 3.64; 95% CI, 1.91-6.94), and HCWs working in emergency departments (7 of 102 HCWs [8.0%; 95% CI, 2.5%-13.1%]; HR, 3.29; 95% CI, 1.52-7.14). Epidemiologic data combined with phylogenetic analyses on COVID-19 wards identified 3 potential HCW-to-HCW transmission clusters. No patient-to-HCW transmission clusters could be identified in transmission analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that HCWs working on COVID-19 wards were at increased risk for nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection with an important role for HCW-to-HCW transmission. These findings suggest that infection among HCWs deserves more consideration in infection prevention practice.

When Limb Surgery Has Become the Only Life-Saving Therapy in FOP: A Case Report and Systematic Review of the Literature.

Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP) is a rare disease in which heterotopic ossification (HO) is formed in muscles, tendons and ligaments. Traumatic events, including surgery, are discouraged as this is known to trigger a flare-up with risk of subsequent HO. Anesthetic management for patients with FOP is challenging. Cervical spine fusion, ankylosis of the temporomandibular joints, thoracic insufficiency syndrome, restrictive chest wall disease, and sensitivity to oral trauma complicate airway management and anesthesia and pose life-threatening risks. We report a patient with FOP suffering from life-threatening antibiotic resistant bacterial infected ulcers of the right lower leg and foot. The anesthetic, surgical and postoperative challenges and considerations are discussed. In addition, the literature on limb surgeries of FOP patients is systemically reviewed. The 44 year-old female patient was scheduled for a through-knee amputation. Airway and pulmonary evaluation elicited severe abnormalities, rendering standard general anesthesia a rather complication-prone approach in this patient. Thus, regional anesthesia, supplemented with intravenous analgosedation and N2O-inhalation were performed in this case. The surgery itself was securely planned to avoid any unnecessary tissue damage. Postoperatively the patient was closely monitored for FOP activity by ultrasound and [18F]PET/CT-scan. One year after surgery, a non-significant amount of HO had formed at the operated site. The systematic review revealed seventeen articles in which thirty-two limb surgeries in FOP patients were described. HO reoccurrence was described in 90% of the cases. Clinical improvement due to improved mobility of the operated joint was noted in 16% of the cases. It should be noted, though, that follow-up time was limited and no or inadequate imaging modalities were used to follow-up in the majority of these cases. To conclude, if medically urgent, limb surgery in FOP is possible even when general anesthesia is not preferred. The procedure should be well-planned, alternative techniques or procedures should be tested prior to surgery and special attention should be paid to the correct positioning of the patient. According to the literature recurrent HO should be expected after surgery of a limb, even though it was limited in the case described.

Interventions in the management of infection in the foot in diabetes: a systematic review.

The optimal approaches to managing diabetic foot infections remain a challenge for clinicians. Despite an exponential rise in publications investigating different treatment strategies, the various agents studied generally produce comparable results, and high-quality data are scarce. In this systematic review, we searched the medical literature using the PubMed and Embase databases for published studies on the treatment of diabetic foot infections as of June 2018. This systematic review is an update of previous reviews, the first of which was undertaken in 2010 and the most recent in 2014, by the infection committee of the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot. We defined the context of literature by formulating clinical questions of interest, then developing structured clinical questions (PICOs) to address these. We only included data from controlled studies of an intervention to prevent or cure a diabetic foot infection. Two independent reviewers selected articles for inclusion and then assessed their relevant outcomes and the methodological quality. Our literature search identified a total of 15 327 articles, of which we selected 48 for full-text review; we added five more studies discovered by means other than the systematic literature search. Among these selected articles were 11 high-quality studies published in the last 4 years and two Cochrane systematic reviews. Overall, the outcomes in patients treated with the different antibiotic regimens for both skin and soft tissue infection and osteomyelitis of the diabetic foot were broadly equivalent across studies, except that treatment with tigecycline was inferior to ertapenem (±vancomycin). Similar outcomes were also reported in studies comparing primarily surgical and predominantly antibiotic treatment strategies in selected patients with diabetic foot osteomyelitis. There is insufficient high-quality evidence to assess the effect of various adjunctive therapies, such as negative pressure wound therapy, topical ointments or hyperbaric oxygen, on infection related outcomes of the diabetic foot. In general, the quality of more recent trial designs are better in past years, but there is still a great need for further well-designed trials to produce higher quality evidence to underpin our recommendations.

Diagnosis of infection in the foot in diabetes: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Securing an early accurate diagnosis of diabetic foot infections and assessment of their severity are of paramount importance since these infections can cause great morbidity and potentially mortality and present formidable challenges in surgical and antimicrobial treatment. METHODS: In June 2018, we searched the literature using PuEbMed and EMBASE for published studies on the diagnosis of diabetic foot infection. On the basis of predetermined criteria, we reviewed prospective controlled, as well as noncontrolled, studies in any language, seeking translations for those not in English. We then developed evidence statements on the basis of the included papers. RESULTS: From the 4242 records screened, we selected 35 papers that met our inclusion criteria. The quality of all but one of the evidence statements was low because of the weak methodology of nearly all of the studies. The available data suggest that diagnosing diabetic foot infections on the basis of clinical signs and symptoms and classified according to the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot scheme correlates with the patient's likelihood of ulcer healing, of lower extremity amputation, and risk of death. Elevated levels of selected serum inflammatory markers are supportive, but not diagnostic, of soft tissue or bone infection. In patients with suspected diabetic foot osteomyelitis, both a positive probe-to-bone test and an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate are strongly associated with its presence. Culturing tissue samples of soft tissues or bone, when care is taken to avoid contamination, provides more accurate microbiological information than culturing superficial (swab) samples. Plain X-ray remains the first-line imaging examination when there is suspicion of diabetic foot osteomyelitis, but advanced imaging methods help in cases when either the diagnosis or the localization of infection is uncertain. CONCLUSION: The results of this first reported systematic review on the diagnosis of diabetic foot infections provide some guidance for clinicians, but there is a need for more prospective controlled studies of high quality.

Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of foot infection in persons with diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update).

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) has published evidence-based guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetic foot disease since 1999. This guideline is on the diagnosis and treatment of foot infection in persons with diabetes and updates the 2015 IWGDF infection guideline. On the basis of patient, intervention, comparison, outcomes (PICOs) developed by the infection committee, in conjunction with internal and external reviewers and consultants, and on systematic reviews the committee conducted on the diagnosis of infection (new) and treatment of infection (updated from 2015), we offer 27 recommendations. These cover various aspects of diagnosing soft tissue and bone infection, including the classification scheme for diagnosing infection and its severity. Of note, we have updated this scheme for the first time since we developed it 15 years ago. We also review the microbiology of diabetic foot infections, including how to collect samples and to process them to identify causative pathogens. Finally, we discuss the approach to treating diabetic foot infections, including selecting appropriate empiric and definitive antimicrobial therapy for soft tissue and for bone infections, when and how to approach surgical treatment, and which adjunctive treatments we think are or are not useful for the infectious aspects of diabetic foot problems. For this version of the guideline, we also updated four tables and one figure from the 2016 guideline. We think that following the principles of diagnosing and treating diabetic foot infections outlined in this guideline can help clinicians to provide better care for these patients.

Definitions and criteria for diabetic foot disease.

Multiple disciplines are involved in the management of diabetic foot disease, and a common vocabulary is essential for clear communication. Based on the systematic reviews of the literature that form the basis of the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) Guidelines, the IWGDF has developed a set of definitions and criteria for diabetic foot disease. This document describes these definitions and criteria. We suggest these definitions be used consistently in both clinical practice and research to facilitate clear communication between professionals.

[Revised prevention strategies for persons with (functional) hypo- or asplenie]. / Aangepast preventiebeleid bij patiënten met hyposplenie of asplenie.

The Dutch guideline for the preventions of infections in persons with (functional) hypo- or asplenie has been revised, recommending adjustments for the use of vaccinations and antibiotics. The spleen has an important function in the defence against infections. Around 1,000 splenectomies are performed in the Netherlands every year. Three different groups of patients are distinguished: (a) persons with a partially or completely removed spleen after surgery or embolization; (b) persons with congenital asplenia; and (c) a heterogeneous group of patients, who may have functional hyposplenie or asplenia due to an underlying condition or specific treatments. Patients with asplenia have an increased risk of severe infections by encapsulated bacteria, including in particular Streptococcus pneumoniae, but also Haemophilus influenzae type b and Neisseria meningitides may lead to an increased risk S.pneumoniae causes up to 90% of the infections, which makes it the most important infectious agent in patients with asplenia. A number of preventive measures are recommended to prevent infections in patients with hypo- or asplenie, including the use of vaccinations and antibiotics and patient counselling.

Results and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) after One-Stage Revision for Periprosthetic Joint Infection of the Hip: A Single-centre Retrospective Study.

Background: Little is known about functional outcome and quality of life (QoL) after one-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip. Methods: a cohort of 30 subjects treated with one-stage revision between 2011 and 2015 was identified, and questionnaires on functional outcome and QoL were distributed. Results: 28 subjects were successfully treated (93%). Most subjects were referred from other hospitals. Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus was found in 50% of the cases, and 40% of all cultured bacteria were multidrug-resistant. 25% had subsequent revision surgery, unrelated to PJI. Functional outcome was good and QoL scores were high, comparable to prosthetic joint revision surgery in general. Conclusion: Although the cohort was small and statistical analysis was not performed, this study showed that excellent results can be obtained with one-stage revision for hip PJI. Functional outcome and QoL was comparable to prosthetic joint revision surgery in general.

The 'morning dip' in antimicrobial appropriateness: circumstances determining appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing.

Objectives: Quality of care has been shown to vary depending on the time of day or day of the week and depending on caregivers' gender and experience. We aimed to study how these factors influence quality of antimicrobial prescribing. Methods: Prospective point-prevalence surveys were performed to determine the association between the above-mentioned prescription factors and antimicrobial appropriateness. Surveys included cases of patients admitted to a tertiary care hospital with a prescribed systemic antimicrobial drug and its prescribers. The main outcome was appropriateness of antimicrobial prescriptions. A post hoc qualitative survey among hospital physicians asked physicians to reflect on the results. Results: The study included 351 antimicrobial prescriptions by 150 physicians prescribed for 276 patients. Appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing in the morning was significantly lower compared with the afternoon and evening/night [43% versus 68% versus 70%, crude OR afternoon versus morning = 3.00 (95% CI = 1.60-5.48), crude OR evening/night versus morning = 3.40 (95% CI = 1.64-6.69)]. First-year residents performed significantly worse than their more experienced colleagues [51% versus 69%, crude OR = 2.09 (95% CI = 1.26-3.38)]. Infectious disease expert consultation improved appropriateness [54% versus 81%, crude OR = 3.71 (95% CI = 2.05-6.23)]. No significant effects for gender or office hours versus non-office hours were found. Post hoc survey results suggest creating room to improve prescribing circumstances during mornings and for inexperienced physicians. Conclusions: Antimicrobial prescribing was less appropriate in the mornings and when prescribed by inexperienced physicians. Appropriateness may be increased by improving prescribing circumstances.