Journals / Kartal Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi Tıp Dergisi / 2016 / Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 3

Diyabetik Ayak Tanılı 32 Olgunun Bakteriyolojik ve Klinik Değerlendirilmesi

Bacteriological and Clinical Evaluation of 32 Cases of Diabetic Foot

Pages
220–226
Publication Date
2022-10-17
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Staphylococcus aureus was the most common bacteria present among cases having CKD-EPI level of 60-89 mL/dk/m2

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background: The primary objective of the present study was to investigate clinical and laboratory characteristics of patients diagnosed with diabetic foot (DF) in order to aid in selection of antibiotic treatment and clinical follow-up.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: Thirty-two patients diagnosed with DF in Department of Internal Medicine between June 2014 and June 2015 were enrolled in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Staphylococcus aureus was the most common bacteria present among cases having CKD-EPI level of 60-89 mL/dk/m2
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2014 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Background: The primary objective of the present study was to investigate clinical and laboratory characteristics of patients diagnosed with diabetic foot (DF) in order to aid in selection of antibiotic treatment and clinical follow-up. Potential relationship between DF, renal complications, and the mechanism of action of diseases were examined. Methods: Thirty-two patients diagnosed with DF in Department of Internal Medicine between June 2014 and June 2015 were enrolled in the study. Retrospective screening of medical data was conducted and patient lipid and microalbuminuria levels, microalbumin/creatinine ratio, creatinine clearance (formulated using Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration [CKD-EPI] equation ), and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level were recorded. Results: Of the 32 patients diagnosed with DF, 13 were female (40.6%) and 19 were male (59.4%). Age range was 32 to 88 years, and mean age was 59.03±10.3 years. Duration of disease of the patients was 5 to 40 years at time of study, and mean was 15.5±7.06 years. Mean HbA1c level was 9.01±2.26% (range: 5.4-14.7%). Mean CKD-EPI level was 75±27.34 mL/min/1.73 m2 (range: 11-130 mL/min/1.73 m2). Bacterial growth was observed in 22 cases (68.8%), and was not detected in 10 cases (31.3%). Two cases (6.3%) presented with growth of multiple microorganisms.Conclusion: Evaluation of causative microorganisms in terms of patient age and gender revealed main bacterial species found were Gram-positive cocci bacteria. There was no statistically significant difference based on CKD-EPI level in terms of mean duration (p=0.001; p < 0.01). Staphylococcus aureus was the most common bacteria present among cases having CKD-EPI level of 60-89 mL/dk/m2

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın temel amacı diyabetik ayak (DA) tanısı alan hastaların klinik ve laboratuvar özelliklerini araştırarak antibiyotik tedavisi ve klinik takip seçimine yardımcı olmaktır. Diyabetik ayak, böbrek komplikasyonları ve hastalıkların etki mekanizması arasındaki potansiyel ilişki incelendi.Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmaya 2014-2015 tarihleri arasında dahiliye polikliniğinde DA nedeni ile izlenen toplam 32 olgu alındı. Hastaların tıbbi kayıtlarından incelenerek geriye dönük olarak lipid düzeyleri, mikroalbüminüri, mikroalbümin/kreatinin oranı, kreatinin klirensi (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration [CKDEPI] ile formülize edilerek), HbA1c düzeyi kaydedildi. Bulgular: Çalışma 13'ü kadın (%40.6), 19'u erkek (%59.4) toplam 32 olgu ile yapıldı. Olguların yaşları 32 ile 88 yıl arasında değişmekte olup, median değeri 58.5 yıldı. Olguların diyabet yaşları beş ile kırk yıl arasında değişmekte olup, ortalaması 15.5±7.06 yıl, HbA1c düzeyleri 5.4 ile 14.7 arasında değişmekte olup, ortalaması 9.01±2.26 idi. Olguların CKD-EPI düzeyleri 11 ile 130 arasında değişmekte olup, ortalaması 75±27.34'tü. Olguların 22'sinde (%68.8) mikroorganizma üremesi görülürken, 10'unda (%31.3) görülmedi. Olguların ikisinde (%6.3) birden fazla mikroorganizma üremişti.Sonuç: Yaş ve cinsiyete göre etken mikroorganizma incelendiğinde en çok Gram (+) kok grubu bakterilerin ürediği görüldü. CKD-EPI grupları arasında diyabet yaşı ortalamaları açısından anlamlı farklılık saptanmadı (p=0.001; p < 0.01). CKD-EPI'ye göre üreyen mikroorganizmalara bakıldığında ise; 60-89 mL/dk/m2 arasında olan olgularda en çok üreyen mikroorganizma Staphylococcus aureus olarak görülmektedir

🔖

Cite This Article

DOĞAN, B., BASAT, S., OLÇUM, G. G., YAĞAN, F. C. Ç. (2022). Diyabetik Ayak Tanılı 32 Olgunun Bakteriyolojik ve Klinik Değerlendirilmesi. Kartal Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 3, 220–226. https://ajindex.com/articles/571277

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Mogensen CE, Christensen CK, Vittinghus E. The stages in diabetic renal disease. With emphasis on the stage of incipient diabetic nephropathy. Diabetes 1983;32 Suppl 2:64-78
  2. Busby DE, Bakris GL. Comparison of commonly used assays for the detection of microalbuminuria. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2004;6(11 Suppl 3):8-12
  3. Jensen JS. Renal and systemic transvascular albumin leakage in severe atherosclerosis. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 1995;15:1324-9
  4. Shaw JE, Sicree RA, Zimmet PZ. Global estimates of the prevalence of diabetes for 2010 and 2030. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2010;87:4-14
  5. Shahid M, Baig S, Zubariri A. Microalbuminuria and Sta tus of diabetic nephropathy in low socioeconomic sect of Karachi. European Journal of Biotechnology and Bioscience 2015;3:28-30
  6. Warram JH, Gearin G, Laffel L, Krolewski AS. Effect of duration of type I diabetes on the prevalence of stages of diabetic nephropathy defined by urinary albumin/creatinine ratio. J Am Soc Nephrol 1996;7:930-7
  7. Guerrero-Romero F, Rodríguez-Morán M. Relationship of microalbuminuria with the diabetic foot ulcers in type II diabetes. J Diabetes Complications 1998;12:193- 6
  8. Boulton AJ. The diabetic foot: from art to science. The 18th Camillo Golgi lecture. Diabetologia 2004;47:1343- 53
  9. Brem H, Tomic-Canic M. Cellular and molecular basis of wound healing in diabetes. J Clin Invest 2007;117:1219- 22
  10. Clayton W, Elcasy TA. A Review of the Pathophysiology, Classification and Treatment of Foot Ulcers in Diabetic Patients. Clin Diabetes 2009;27:52-8
  11. Singh S, Pai DR, Yuhhui C. Diabetic Foot Ulcer-Diagnosis and Management. Clin Res Foot Ankle 2013;1:3
  12. Örmen B, Türker N, Vardar İ, Coşkun NA, Kaptan F, Ural S. Clinical and Bacteriological Evaluation of Diabetic Foot Infections. Turkish Journal of Infectıon 2007;21:65-9
  13. Dökmetaş İ, Dökmetaş HS, Şencan M. Diabetic Foot Infections. Flora 1999;4:3-8
  14. Armstrong DG, Lavery LA. Diabetic foot ulcers: prevention, diagnosis and classification. Am Fam Physician 1998;57:1325-38
  15. Saltoglu N, Yemisen M, Ergonul O, Kadanali A, Karagoz G, Batirel A, et al. Predictors for limb loss among patient with diabetic foot infections: an observational retrospective multicentric study in Turkey. Clin Microbiol Infect 2015;21:659-64
  16. Cunha BA. Antibiotic selection for diabetic foot infections: a review. J Foot Ankle Surg 2000;39:253-7
  17. Lipsky BA, Berendt AR, Deery HG, Embil JM, Joseph WS, Karchmer AW, et al. Diagnosis and t