MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-1134-2

Медицинская библиотека · BMC infectious diseases · 2015

Erysipelas, a large retrospective study of aetiology and clinical presentation.

Bläckberg Anna, Trell Kristina, Rasmussen Magnus

СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

Erysipelas is a common and severe infection where the aetiology and optimal management is not well-studied. Here, we investigate the clinical features, bacteriological aetiology, and treatment of erysipelas.

METHODS

Episodes of erysipelas in a seven-years period in our institution were studied retrospectively using a pre-specified protocol and is presented with descriptive and comparative statistics.

RESULTS

1142 episodes of erysipelas were identified in 981 patients. Patients had a median age of 61 years, 59 % were male, a majority had underlying diseases or predisposing conditions, and the leg was most often affected. Wound cultures were taken in 343 episodes and 56 grew group A streptococci (GAS), 53 grew group G streptococci (GGS), 11 grew group C streptococci (GCS), and 153 grew Staphylococcus aureus. Blood cultures were drawn in 49 % of episodes and 50 cultures were positive with GGS as the most common finding (21 cultures) followed by GAS in 13, group B streptococci in 5, S. aureus in 4, and GCS in 3 cultures. In 45 % of episodes, patients received antibiotics with activity against S. aureus.

CONCLUSIONS

GGS is the most common streptococcus isolated in erysipelas and the role of S. aureus in erysipelas remains elusive.

Для цитирования: Bläckberg Anna, Trell Kristina, Rasmussen Magnus. Erysipelas, a large retrospective study of aetiology and clinical presentation.. BMC infectious diseases. 2015. DOI: 10.1186/s12879-015-1134-2.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.