RESUMEN
BACKGROUND OBJECTIVES: Hantavirus and leptospirosis infections are zoonotic diseases with similar clinical and laboratory findings. The aim of this study is identifying the distinguishing features of these two diseases, for which a definitive diagnosis can take a long time. METHODS: Between September 2021 and June 2023, a total of 45 patients who were admitted to our hospital and were diagnosed with HFRS or leptospirosis were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were compared in terms of demographic data, clinical, and laboratory parameters. The role of these variables in predicting HFRS or leptospirosis was investigated. The two diseases were compared with regard to outcomes. Receiver operating characteristics were employed for the calculation of cut-off values, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for parameters showing significant differences. A statistical significance level of p<0.05 was considered. RESULTS: Fifteen patients diagnosed with HFRS and thirty patients diagnosed with leptospirosis were included in the study. In both groups, hospital admissions were observed with non-specific and similar symptoms. There was no statistically significant difference observed between the two groups in terms of length of hospital stay, blood product transfusion, requirement for hemodialysis, intensive care unit admission, the rate of return to normal renal function and mortality. Elevated ferritin levels were statistically significant in favor of HFRS, while lymphopenia, elevated bilirubin, CRP, and ESR were statistically significant in favor of leptospirosis. INTERPRETATION CONCLUSION: The use of laboratory findings and clinical symptoms can aid in the challenging task of accurately diagnosing and using appropriate treatment for these two diseases.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the pathogens detected by the Gastrointestinal (GI) PCR panel in patients with acute gastroenteritis (AGE), the evaluation of antibiotic use in these patients, and the investigation of the role of laboratory parameters in differentiating viral and bacterial etiologies. METHODS: The demographic characteristics, GI PCR panel results, laboratory investigations, antibiotic usage, and appropriateness of antibiotic treatment were investigated in AGE patients. RESULTS: A total of 175 adult patients with AGE and GI PCR panel results were included in the study. The most common pathogens were EPEC (24.6%) and C. difficile (18.3%). Among the 102 patients receiving antibiotic treatment, 34.3% were evaluated as inappropriate antibiotic use. WBC, CRP, procalcitonin, CRP/albumin ratio, and procalcitonin/albumin ratio were found to be significantly higher in cases with bacterial origin. CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of GI PCR panels in AGE patients has revolutionized the field of diagnostics by providing rapid and accurate identification of pathogens. In units without the possibility of GI PCR testing, CRP, procalcitonin, CRP/albumin ratio and procalcitonin/albumin ratio may be useful in the decision of antibiotic treatment.