常规血清实验室对照样本在治疗糖尿病足感染中缺乏益处

Pascal R. Furrer, M. Schöni, Felix W. A. Waibel, Martin C. Berli, Benjamin A. Lipsky, I. Uçkay
{"title":"常规血清实验室对照样本在治疗糖尿病足感染中缺乏益处","authors":"Pascal R. Furrer, M. Schöni, Felix W. A. Waibel, Martin C. Berli, Benjamin A. Lipsky, I. Uçkay","doi":"10.26502/ami.93650080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Lack of Benefit of Routine Serum Laboratory Control Samples during Treatment of Diabetic Foot Infection. Archives of Microbiology and Immunology 6 (2022): Abstract Purpose: Clinicians often routinely order measurements of serum inflammatory and other laboratory markers to assess the response to treatment of diabetic foot infections (DFI). Scientific evidence supporting this widespread practice is very limited and unclear. We sought to determine if the levels (or their dynamic change) of these markers predict important future outcomes, including recurrence of infection and development of foot ischemia Methods: At Balgrist University Hospital we keep a registry of patients treated for diabetic foot diseases. This allowed us to compare, at study enrolment and at the end of treatment of a DFI, the patient’s blood levels of: C-reactive protein; leukocytes; thrombocytes; medical therapy failed to control infection in the remaining 225. The incidence of infection recurrence with a microbiologically-identical strain was 5%. In crude comparisons, as well as by case-mix adjustment using a multivariate Cox regression analysis, none of the laboratory parameters was predictive of the likelihood of overall clinical failure or microbiological recurrence. The relative decrease in the level of each parameter was similar between DFI episodes with clinical remission or failure, with the exception of a moderate increase in the final thrombocyte counts among failing episodes. Conclusions: This retrospective review of our results suggests that routine blood sampling of infection markers during DFI therapy is not beneficial for assessing key clinical outcomes.","PeriodicalId":222617,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Microbiology & Immunology","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lack of Benefit of Routine Serum Laboratory Control Samples during Treatment of Diabetic Foot Infection\",\"authors\":\"Pascal R. Furrer, M. Schöni, Felix W. A. Waibel, Martin C. Berli, Benjamin A. Lipsky, I. Uçkay\",\"doi\":\"10.26502/ami.93650080\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Lack of Benefit of Routine Serum Laboratory Control Samples during Treatment of Diabetic Foot Infection. Archives of Microbiology and Immunology 6 (2022): Abstract Purpose: Clinicians often routinely order measurements of serum inflammatory and other laboratory markers to assess the response to treatment of diabetic foot infections (DFI). Scientific evidence supporting this widespread practice is very limited and unclear. We sought to determine if the levels (or their dynamic change) of these markers predict important future outcomes, including recurrence of infection and development of foot ischemia Methods: At Balgrist University Hospital we keep a registry of patients treated for diabetic foot diseases. This allowed us to compare, at study enrolment and at the end of treatment of a DFI, the patient’s blood levels of: C-reactive protein; leukocytes; thrombocytes; medical therapy failed to control infection in the remaining 225. The incidence of infection recurrence with a microbiologically-identical strain was 5%. In crude comparisons, as well as by case-mix adjustment using a multivariate Cox regression analysis, none of the laboratory parameters was predictive of the likelihood of overall clinical failure or microbiological recurrence. The relative decrease in the level of each parameter was similar between DFI episodes with clinical remission or failure, with the exception of a moderate increase in the final thrombocyte counts among failing episodes. Conclusions: This retrospective review of our results suggests that routine blood sampling of infection markers during DFI therapy is not beneficial for assessing key clinical outcomes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":222617,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Microbiology & Immunology\",\"volume\":\"59 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Microbiology & Immunology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26502/ami.93650080\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Microbiology & Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26502/ami.93650080","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

常规血清实验室对照样本在治疗糖尿病足感染中缺乏益处。摘要目的:临床医生通常会常规要求检测血清炎症和其他实验室标志物,以评估对糖尿病足感染(DFI)治疗的反应。支持这种普遍做法的科学证据非常有限和不明确。我们试图确定这些标志物的水平(或其动态变化)是否预测了重要的未来结果,包括感染的复发和足部缺血的发展。方法:在Balgrist大学医院,我们保留了糖尿病足病患者的登记。这使我们能够比较,在研究入组时和DFI治疗结束时,患者血液中的c反应蛋白水平;白细胞;thrombocytes;其余225例患者的药物治疗未能控制感染。微生物学相同菌株的感染复发率为5%。在粗略比较中,以及通过使用多变量Cox回归分析的病例组合调整,没有任何实验室参数可以预测总体临床失败或微生物复发的可能性。在临床缓解或失败的DFI发作之间,每个参数水平的相对下降是相似的,除了失败发作期间最终血小板计数的适度增加。结论:本研究结果的回顾性回顾表明,在DFI治疗期间,常规血液感染标志物采样对评估关键临床结果无益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Lack of Benefit of Routine Serum Laboratory Control Samples during Treatment of Diabetic Foot Infection
Lack of Benefit of Routine Serum Laboratory Control Samples during Treatment of Diabetic Foot Infection. Archives of Microbiology and Immunology 6 (2022): Abstract Purpose: Clinicians often routinely order measurements of serum inflammatory and other laboratory markers to assess the response to treatment of diabetic foot infections (DFI). Scientific evidence supporting this widespread practice is very limited and unclear. We sought to determine if the levels (or their dynamic change) of these markers predict important future outcomes, including recurrence of infection and development of foot ischemia Methods: At Balgrist University Hospital we keep a registry of patients treated for diabetic foot diseases. This allowed us to compare, at study enrolment and at the end of treatment of a DFI, the patient’s blood levels of: C-reactive protein; leukocytes; thrombocytes; medical therapy failed to control infection in the remaining 225. The incidence of infection recurrence with a microbiologically-identical strain was 5%. In crude comparisons, as well as by case-mix adjustment using a multivariate Cox regression analysis, none of the laboratory parameters was predictive of the likelihood of overall clinical failure or microbiological recurrence. The relative decrease in the level of each parameter was similar between DFI episodes with clinical remission or failure, with the exception of a moderate increase in the final thrombocyte counts among failing episodes. Conclusions: This retrospective review of our results suggests that routine blood sampling of infection markers during DFI therapy is not beneficial for assessing key clinical outcomes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信