Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters











Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Ann Saudi Med ; 43(4): 243-253, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37554024

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: ICU and other patients hospitalized with corona-virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are more susceptible to secondary infections. Undetected secondary infections tend to have a severe clinical impact, associated with prolonged hospitalization and higher rates of inpatient mortality. OBJECTIVES: Estimate the prevalence of secondary infections, determine the frequency of microbial species detected at different body sites, and measure the association between secondary infections and outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analytical study. SETTING: Tertiary care center in Riyadh PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were collected through retrospective chart review of hospitalized COVID-19 patients >18 years old from March 2020 until May 2022 at King Saud University Medical City (27 months). Rates of secondary infections among hospitalized COVID-19 patients were described and data on clinical outcomes (intensive care admission, invasive management procedures and mortality) was collected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Features and rates of infection and mortality. SAMPLE SIZE: 260 RESULTS: In total, 24.2% of the study population had secondary infections. However, only 68.8% of patients had secondary infection testing, from which 35.2% had a confirmed secondary infection. These patients had a significantly higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus (P<.0001) and cardiovascular diseases (P=.001). The odds of ICU admissions (63.3%) among secondarily infected patients was 8.4 times higher compared to patients with only COVID-19 infection (17.3%). Secondarily infected patients were more likely to receive invasive procedures (OR=5.068) and had a longer duration of hospital stay compared to COVID-19 only patients. Overall mortality was 16.2%, with a predominantly higher proportion among those secondarily infected (47.6% vs 6.1%) (OR=14.015). Bacteria were the most commonly isolated organisms, primarily from blood (23.3%), followed by fungal isolates, which were mostly detected in urine (17.2%). The most detected organism was Candida albicans (17.2%), followed by Escherichia coli (9.2%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (9.2%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (9.2%). CONCLUSION: Secondary infections were prevalent among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Secondarily infected patients had longer hospital stay, higher odds of ICU admission, mortality, and invasive procedures. LIMITATION: Single-center study, retrospective design and small sample size. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Coinfection , Humans , Adolescent , COVID-19/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Prevalence , Cross-Sectional Studies , Intensive Care Units
2.
Medicina (Kaunas) ; 59(1)2022 Dec 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36676687

ABSTRACT

Background and Objectives: Diabetic foot (DF) disease is one of the myriad complications of diabetes. Positive outcomes are expected through a multidisciplinary approach as provided by primary care providers (PCPs). This study aimed to assess the knowledge of DF and attitude of physicians in primary healthcare settings toward DF diagnosis and prevention in Saudi Arabia. Materials and Methods: This observational cross-sectional study used a self-administered questionnaire that was completed by family medicine consultants, residents, and general practitioners working in primary care settings in Riyadh. Results: Of the 152 physicians who completed the survey, (43.4%) completed more than 10 h of diabetes continuing medical education (CME) over the past three years. Most (96.1%) PCPs educate patients about foot self-inspection, and only (64.5%) perform foot inspection at every visit in high-risk diabetic foot patients. PCP knowledge about diagnosing and managing diabetic foot infection was suboptimal. Only 53.9% of participants reported performing a probe-to-bone in DF patients with open wounds. Conclusions: We identified knowledge and action gaps among PCPs. Physicians had acceptable knowledge about preventive measures. However, deficits were found regarding diagnosing and management of DF infections. We recommend addressing these knowledge gaps by incorporating DF lectures and workshops within family medicine conferences and residency programs.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus , Diabetic Foot , Physicians , Humans , Diabetic Foot/diagnosis , Diabetic Foot/prevention & control , Saudi Arabia , Attitude of Health Personnel , Primary Health Care
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL