ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Diabetes foot infection is a very important public health problem that causes serious health problems, mortality, and high health expenditures, and is one of the most important complications of diabetes mellitus. There are concerns that approaches such as limited personal visits to doctors, avoidance of hospitals, and restrictions on nonemergency surgical procedures during the coronavirus disease of 2019 pandemic pose a threat to those with diabetic foot problems, including diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), ischemia, and infection, resulting in increased limb loss and mortality. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective, cross-sectional study was conducted in 14 tertiary care hospitals from various regions of Turkey. A total of 1,394 patient records were evaluated, 794 of which were between January 1, 2019, and January 30, 2020 (prepandemic [Pre-P]), and 605 of which were between February 1, 2020, and February 28, 2021 (pandemic period [PP]). RESULTS: During the PP, diabetic foot patient follow-up decreased by 23.8%. In addition, the number of hospitalizations attributable to DFU has decreased significantly during the PP (P = .035). There was no difference between the groups regarding patient demographics, medical history, DFU severity, biochemical and radiologic findings, or comorbidities, but the mean duration of diabetes mellitus years was longer in patients in the Pre-P than in those in the PP (15.1 years versus 13.7 years). There was no difference between the two groups in terms of major complications such as limb loss and mortality, but infection recurrence was higher in the PP than in the Pre-P (12.9% versus 11.4%; P < .05). The prevalence of nonfermentative gram-negative bacteria as causative agents in DFU infections increased during the PP. In particular, the prevalence of carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas spp. increased statistically during the PP. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid adaptation to the pandemic with the measures and changes developed by the multidisciplinary diabetic foot care committees may be the reasons why there was no increase in complications because of DFU during the pandemic in Turkey.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diabetic Foot , Humans , Diabetic Foot/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Retrospective Studies , Male , Female , Turkey/epidemiology , Middle Aged , Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections/epidemiology , Gram-Negative Bacteria , HospitalizationABSTRACT
Background: Tuberculosis (TB) is one of the oldest and deadliest infectious diseases known to affect human health, which is gaining renewed importance today. Methods: In our center, which is a tertiary research hospital, the data of patients hospitalized due to TB between 2011 and 2022 were retrospectively identified by searching the database. Results: Six women (30.0%) and 14 men (70.0%) were included in the study. When analyzed by age grouping, four patients between the ages of 19 and 34 years (20.0%), five patients between the ages of 38 and 58 years (25.0%), five patients aged 61-69 years (25.0%), and six patients aged 70-81 years (30.0%). Radiographs showed cavitation in 9 (45.0%) patients, and 11 (55.0%) patients had no radiologic findings. The ARS results of the participants showed that there were 7 (35.0%) patients positive and 13 (65.0%) patients negative. When the TB culture variables of the participants were analyzed, it was found that there were 5 (25.0%) people with no growth and 15 (75.0%) people with growth. Concurrent diseases were noted in patients including 5 (25.0%) with organ transplantation, 3 (15.0%) with diabetes mellitus, 2 (%10) with cancer, and 2 (10%) with chronic renal failure according to the chart records. The distribution of cases was as follows: 19 (95.0%) pulmonary TB and 1 (5.0%) pleural TB. It was found that there were 5 (25.0%) people with a history of TBC and 15 people (75.0%) without a history of TBC. Moreover, drug susceptibility tests showed that 5 (25%) patients of the isolates were identified as multidrug resistant with first-line drug susceptibility testing. Conclusion: The study was not financially supported by any individual/organization, and the authors have no vested interests.