| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Ahead of Print |
|
|
A study of clinical profile of 100 icteric leptospirosis cases
Mohit Sethia1, Rahul Jain2, Santosh Kumar Singh3, Rina Tilak4, Arun Kumar Yadav4
1 Department of Gastroenterology, Army Hospital R and R, New Delhi, India
2 Department of Gastroenterology, R and R Hospital, New Delhi, India
3 Department of Internal Medicine, AFMC, Pune, Maharashtra, India
4 Department of Community Medicine, AFMC, Pune, Maharashtra, India
Correspondence Address:
Arun Kumar Yadav,
Department of Community Medicine, AFMC, Pune - 411 040, Maharashtra
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None DOI: 10.4103/mjdrdypu.mjdrdypu_843_21
|
|
|
Background: Leptospirosis is a widespread zooanthroponosis prevalent in tropical regions due to its etiologic agent's favorable environmental survival conditions. The disease has protean clinical manifestation. The present study was conducted to describe clinical signs, symptoms, and outcomes in severe icteric leptospirosis cases. Materials and Methods: This observational study was carried out in Surat from r 2012–2014. A total of 100 confirmed cases of icteric Leptospirosis was included in the study. Clinico-socio-demographic profile of the cases was noted. The symptoms and signs were described. The clinical outcome was described in terms of laboratory and other findings. Results: Fever was seen as the most common presenting symptom in 100% patients. Icterus (100%) crepts (86%) and tachypnea (80%) were the most common presenting signs. Breathlessness and hemoptysis were significantly more common in nonsurvivors than survivors. Mortality was more common in cases who had not taken chemoprophylaxis, platelet count <50,000/mm3, serum creatinine more than three mg%, international normalized ratio less than two, and multiorgan dysfunction. Conclusion: The study brought out common sign and symptoms of icteric leptospirosis. Sociodemographic and clinical parameters associated with poor outcome were also delineated. Smoking and alcohol seemed to be important contributory factors in aggravation of the disease. Chemoprophylaxis was preventive in adverse outcome. The clinical parameter may help in prediction of the course of the disease.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search Pubmed for