Browse > Article

Comparison of White Blood Cell Count, Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate, and C-Reactive Protein for Diagnosis of Diabetic Foot Infection  

Lee, Joon-Moon (Department of Plastic Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine)
Han, Seung-Kyu (Department of Plastic Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine)
Gu, Ja-Hea (Department of Plastic Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine)
Jung, Sung-Ho (Department of Plastic Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine)
Kim, Woo-Kyung (Department of Plastic Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine)
Publication Information
Archives of Plastic Surgery / v.37, no.4, 2010 , pp. 346-350 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: Diagnosis of diabetic foot infection is sometimes difficult, since the classical inflammatory signs and leukocytosis may be absent due to the decreased host immune response in diabetics. Therefore inflammatory blood markers, such as white blood cell (WBC) count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and C-reactive protein (CRP) have been commonly needed to confirm the diagnosis of infection. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic usefulness of WBC, ESR and CRP for detection of diabetic foot infection. Methods: Peripheral blood samples were taken from 113 patients with diabetic foot ulcers admitted from June 2007 to April 2009. Diabetic foot infection was diagnosed according to the microbiological culture from soft tissue and bone specimens. Reference values of tests were 4500-11000 /${\mu}L$ for WBC count, 0-20 mm/hr for ESR, and 0-5 mg/L for $CRP^{13,14}$. Sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative predictive values of laboratory tests were calculated and analysed. Receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curve was also created. Results: There was a significant difference in WBC, ESR, and CRP between infectious group and noninfectious group (p<0.05). The sensitivity of WBC>11,000 /${\mu}L$ ESR > 20 mm/hr, and CRP > 5 mg/L was 30%, 96%, and 84%. The specificity was 86%, 14%, and 50% for WBC, ESR, and CRP, respectively. Positive predictive value was 88%, 78%, and 84%, and negative predictive value was 28%, 50%, and 50% respectively. The areas under the ROC curve for WBC, ESR and CRP were 0.72, 0.75, and 0.78 respectively. Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, we conclude that CRP is more useful method in predicting and diagnosing infection than WBC, ESR in diabetic foot ulcer patients.
Keywords
Diabetic foot; Infection; Diagnosis;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Joshi N, Caputo GM, Weitekamp MR, Karchmer AW: Infections in patients with diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 341: 1906, 1999   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Casadevall A, Pirofski LA: Host-pathogen interactions: basic concepts of microbial commensalism, colonization, infection, and disease, Infect Immun 68: 6511, 2000   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Jeandrot A, Richard JL, Combescure C, Jourdan N, Finge S, Rodier M, Corbeau P, Sotto A, Lavigne JP: Serum procalcitonin and c-reactive protein concentrations to distinguish mildly infected from non-infected diabetic foot ulcers: a pilot study. Diabetologia 52: 347, 2008
4 Han SK; Management of Diabetic Wound. 1st ed, Seoul, Koonja, 2008, p 124
5 Husain TM, Kim DH: C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate in orthopaedics, The University of Pennsylvania Orthopaedic Journal 15: 13, 2002
6 Robers WL, Moulton L, Law TC, Farrow G, Cooper- Anderson M, Savory J, Rifal N: Evaluation of nine automated high-sensitivity c-reactive protein methods: implications for clinical and eidemiological applications. part 2. Clin Chem 47: 418, 2001
7 Williams DT, Hilton JR, Harding KG: Diagnosing foot infection in diabetes. Clin Infect Dis 39: S83, 2004   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Ertugrul BM, Savk O, Ozturk B, Cobanoglu M, Oncu S, Sakarya S: The diagnosis of diabetic foot osteomyelitis: examination findings and laboratory values. Med Sci Monit 15: 307, 2009
9 Armstrong DG, Lavery LA, Sariaya M, Ashry H: Leukocytosis is a poor indicator of acute osteomyelitis of the foot in diabetes mellitus. J Foot Ankle Surg 35: 280, 1996   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Fleischer AE, Didyk AA, Woods JB, Burns SE, Wrobel JS, Armstrong DG: Combined clinical and laboratory testing improves diagnostic accuracy for osteomyelitis in the diabetic foot. J Foot Ankle Surg, 48: 39, 2009   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Fletcher J, Haynes AP, Crouch SM: Acquired abnormalities of polymorphonuclear neutrophil function. Blood Rev 4: 103, 1990   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Powers AC: Diabetes mellitus. In Kasper DL, Fauci AS, Longo DL, Braunwald E, Hauser SL, Jameson JL (eds): Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, 16th Ed, New York, McGraw-Hill, 2005, p 2168
13 Delamaire M, Maugendre D, Moreno M, Le Goff MC, Allannic H, Genetet B: Impaired leukocyte functions in diabetic patients. Diabet Med 14: 29, 1997   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Lavery LA, Armstrong DG, Wunderlich RP, Tredwell J, Boulton AJ: Diabetic foot syndrome: evaluating the prevalence and incidence of foot pathology in mexican americans and non-hispanic whites from a diabetes management cohort. Diabetes Care 26: 1435, 2003.   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Armstrong DG, Lavery LA, Harkless LB: Validation of a diabetic wound classification system: the contribution of depth infection, and ischemia to risk of amputation. Diabetes Care 21: 855, 1998   DOI   ScienceOn