scholarly journals What Is the Best Option for Treating Venous Leg Ulcer Infection? Is It Systemic or Local Antimicrobials or a Combination of Both? A Retrospective Cohort Study

Author(s):  
Ahmed Kamel Abdulhamid ◽  
Rusul Jasim Khalaf ◽  
Shah-Jalal Sarker

Study aimed to find out best option (systemic or local antimicrobial or combination of both) for treating venous leg ulcer infection. Patients’ files were reviewed retrospectively. Participants were divided into three groups. First group was treated by systemic antibiotics only (SABG). Second group received local antibiotics only (LABG). Third group was treated by combination of both (SLABG). Treatment strategies were compared based on multiple parameters using Pearson chi-squared test & relative risk (RR). 456 participants identified: 153 in SABG, 152 in LABG and 151 in SLABG. It was found that SLABG group was statistically significantly better than other single treatment strategies regarding all parameters (except bacterial resistance): (i) ulcer healing within usual duration (10-14 days) was 2.4 time higher (RR 2.4, 95% CI: 1.84, 3.12), (ii) probability of not recurring ulcer was 2.6 time higher (iii) probability of not getting increased wound size, abscess,cellulites was 5 times higher (iv) probability of not developing septicemia was 40% higher (v) probability of not requiring surgical intervention was 30% higher (vi) fewer patients needed prolonged hospitalization & lower cost was 8 times more likely (vii) patients were 3 times more satisfied during treatment .Probability of bacterial resistance was six times higher with SLABG and 5 times higher with SABG compared to LABG. For RR & CI values for all above parameters, see results below Ultimately, combination of both systemic and local antimicrobials may be best option to treat venous leg ulcer infection with out- weight with emergence of antibiotic-resistance microorganism.

Leczenie Ran ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 49-58
Author(s):  
Wojciech Twardokęs ◽  
Agata Kołodziej ◽  
Andrzej Ślęzak

Infectio ro ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (51) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mădălina Irina Mitran ◽  
Cristina Iulia Mitran ◽  
Mircea Tampa ◽  
Maria Isabela Sârbu ◽  
Alexandra Mihaela Popa ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Ana Rosa Alconero-Camarero ◽  
Carmen María Sarabia-Cobo ◽  
María José Catalán-Piris ◽  
Silvia González-Gómez ◽  
José Rafael González-López

Training based on clinical simulation is an effective method of teaching in nursing. Nevertheless, there is no clear evidence about if it is better to use high- or medium-fidelity simulation. The aim is to analyse if students are more satisfied when their clinical simulation practices are based on high-fidelity simulation (HFS) or medium-fidelity simulation (MFS). Students´ satisfaction was assessed using the Satisfaction Scale Questionnaire with High-Fidelity Clinical Simulation. The sample is composed of 393 students from two Spanish Universities. Satisfaction with simulation in nursing students is significantly greater in MFS than HFS. Simulation is beneficial for learning in all its forms, but for the acquisition of basic skills, and at a lower cost, MFS proves to be effective. However, high-fidelity is not always better than medium-fidelity as this depends on the student’s level of knowledge and clinical experience.


CORROSION ◽  
1976 ◽  
Vol 32 (10) ◽  
pp. 414-417 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. WALKER

Abstract The use of triazole, benzotriazole, and naphthotriazole as corrosion inhibitors for brass is briefly reviewed. The corrosion of 70/30 brass immersed in a wide range of solutions is reported both with and without the inhibitors. The inhibitor efficiency of benzotriazole is given as a function of the solution pH and the concentration used. Triazole was only effective in mildly corrosive solutions and benzotriazole and naphthotriazole were much better. Generally naphthotriazole was better than benzotriazole but is much more expensive and a higher concentration of benzotriazole can give the same protection as naphthotriazole at a much lower cost.


2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 128-135 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Nørregaard ◽  
S. Bermark ◽  
F. Gottrup

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document