4.2 Article

Monomicrobial Necrotizing Fasciitis Caused by Aeromonas hydrophila and Klebsiella pneumoniae

期刊

MEDICAL PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE
卷 24, 期 5, 页码 416-423

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000431094

关键词

Necrotizing fasciitis; Aeromonas hydrophila; Klebsiella pneumoniae

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare specific characteristics and clinical outcomes of monomicrobial necrotizing fasciitis caused by Aeromonas hydrophila and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Material and Methods: Cases of monomicrobial necrotizing fasciitis caused by A. hydrophila (n = 11) and K. pneumoniae (n = 7) over an 8-year period were retrospectively reviewed. Differences in mortality, patient characteristics, clinical presentations, and laboratory data were compared between the A. hydrophila and the K. pneumoniae groups. Results: The clinical signs and symptoms at the time of presentation did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) between the two groups. The A. hydrophila group had a significantly shorter interval between contact and admission (1.55 +/- 0.52 vs. 5.14 +/- 2.12 days, p < 0.001) and significant lower total white blood cell counts (10,245 +/- 5,828 vs. 19,014 +/- 11,370 cells/mm(3), p < 0.045) than the K. pneumoniae group in the emergency room. Hepatic dysfunction was associated with mortality in patients with A. hydrophila infection, while diabetes mellitus was associated with mortality in patients with K. pneumoniae infection. Overall, 5 (45.5%) patients in the A. hydrophila group and 3 (42.8%) in the K. pneumoniae group died. Conclusion: The initial clinical course of A. hydrophila monomicrobial necrotizing fasciitis was characterized by more rapidly progressive disease than that of the K. pneumoniae infection. Patients with hepatic dysfunction and necrotizing fasciitis should be suspected of having A. hydrophila infection, and diabetic patients with necrotizing fasciitis should be suspected of having K. pneumoniae infection initially. (C) 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据