KOMPLİKE OLMAYAN SELÜLİT VAKALARINDA FARKLI TEDAVİ SEÇENEKLERİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Year 2022, , 187 - 191, 30.04.2022

Barış Ertunç , Mustafa Arslan

https://doi.org/10.24938/kutfd.1073560

Abstract

Amaç: Günlük pratiğimizde sıklıkla karşılaştığımız selülit vakalarında kullanımı önerilmekte olan seftriaksonun, yarı ömrünün uzun olması nedeni ile kılavuzlarda günde tek doz olarak kullanılabileceği belirtilmekle birlikte zaman zaman tedavide sorunlar ile karşılaşabilmekteyiz. Bu nedenle günde tek doz seftriakson tedavisinin etkinliğinin diğer ajanlarla karşılaştırılarak değerlendirilmesi amaçlandı.

Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmamıza 2017 - 2019 yılları arasında hastanemizde tedavi edilmiş ve komplike olmayan 46 selülit hastası dahil edilmiştir. Hastalara ait demografik, klinik ve laboratuvar verileri hasta dosyalarından elde edildi. Mann-Whitney U ve Kruskal-Wallis testleri ile veriler değerlendirildi. p<0.05 olan değerler istatistiksel olarak anlamlı kabul edildi.

Bulgular: Hastalar sefazolin, seftriakson günde 2 kez ve seftriakson günde bir kez alanlar olacak şekilde sırası ile Grup-1, Grup-2 ve Grup-3 olarak gruplara ayrıldı. Grup-1 ve 2 arasında klinik cevap ve toplam tedavi süresi arasında anlamlı farklılık bulunmamakla birlikte Grup-3’te; Grup-1 ve 2’ye göre klinik cevap ve tedavi süresi daha uzun ve istatistiksel olarak anlamlı idi.

Sonuç: Seftriaksonun günde tek doz kullanımı önerilmekle birlikte, sefazolin ve günde 12 saat ara ile uygulanan seftriakson tedavileri ile karşılaştırıldığında klinik cevabın daha geç alındığı görülmüştür. Bu hastalarda toplam tedavi süresi de daha uzun olmakta idi. Bu nedenle seftriaksonun tedavi başlangıcında 12 saat ara ile başlanmasının daha uygun olacağı görüşündeyiz.

Keywords

Selülit, Seftriakson, Sefazolin

Supporting Institution

yok

Project Number

yok

Evaluation of Different Treatment Options in Non-Complicated Cellulite Cases

Abstract

Objective: Ceftriaxone is recommended for use in cellulite cases. It is indicated that its half-life is long and that it can be used as a single dose per day. However, we sometimes encounter problems in treatment. For this reason, the efficacy of once-dose ceftriaxone treatment was evaluated by comparing with other agents.

Material and Methods: In our study, 46 non-complex cellulite patients treated in our hospital between 2017 and 2019 were included. Demographic, clinical and laboratory data of the patients were obtained from the patient files. Data was evaluated with Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Values with p<0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results: The patients were divided into groups as Group-1, Group-2 and Group-3, respectively, as those who received cefazolin, ceftriaxone twice a day, and ceftriaxone once a day. There was no significant difference in clinical response and total treatment time between groups 1 and 2. In Group-3; clinical response and duration of treatment were longer and statistically significant compared to Groups-1 and 2.

Conclusion: One dose of ceftriaxone was recommended daily, but when compared with ceftriaxone treatment administered intermittently for 12 hours a day, the clinical response was later. The total treatment duration of these patients was also longer. For this reason, we think that it would be more appropriate to start ceftriaxone at an interval of 12 hours at the beginning of the treatment.

Keywords

Ceftriaxone, Cefazolin, Cellulitis

Project Number

yok

References

• 1. Raff AB, Kroshinsky D. Cellulitis: A Review. JAMA. 2016;316(3):325-37.
• 2. Lepak AJ, Andes DR. Cephalosporins. In: Bennet JE, Dolin R, Blaser MJ, eds. Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett’s Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases. 9th ed. Philadelphia. Elsevier, 2019:268-84.
• 3. Stevens DL, Bisno AL, Chambers HF, Dellinger EP, Goldstein EJC, Gorbach SL et al. Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of skin and soft tissue infections: 2014 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis [Internet]. 2014;59(2):e10-52.
• 4. Sartelli M, Guirao X, Hardcastle TC, Kluger Y, Boermeester MA, Raşa K et al. 2018 WSES/SIS-E consensus conference: recommendations for the management of skin and soft-tissue infections. World J Emerg Surg. 2018;13:58. doi: 10.1186/s13017-018-0219-9.
• 5. Pasternack MS, Swartz MN. Cellulitis, necrotizing fasciitis, and subcutaneous tissue infections. In: Bennett JE, Dolin R, Blaser MJ, eds. Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett’s Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases. 9th ed. Philadelphia. Elsevier, 2019:1282-306.
• 6. Kim BN, Peri AM, Paterson DL. Ceftriaxon. In: Grayson ML, Cosgrove SE, Crowe SM, Hope W, Mccarthy JS, Mills J et al., eds. Kucers’ THE USE OF ANTIBIOTICS A Clinical Review of Antibacterial, Antifungal, Antiparasitic, and Antiviral Drugs. 7th ed. New York. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, 2018:464-529.
• 7. Esposito S, Bassetti M, Concia E, De Simone G, De Rosa FG, Grossi P et al. Diagnosis and management of skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTI). A literature review and consensus statement: an update. J Chemother [Internet]. 2017;29(4):197-214.
• 8. Morris A. Cellulitis and erysipelas. Clin Evid (Online). 2003;(10):1878-83.
• 9. Craig WA. Interrelationship between pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in determining dosage regimens for broad-spectrum cephalosporins. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1995;(22):89-96.
• 10. Craig WA. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters: Rationale for antibacterial dosing of mice and men. Clin Infect Dis. 1998;26(1):1-12.
• 11. Gordin FM, Wofsy CB, Mills J. Once-daily ceftriaxone for skin and soft tissue infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1985;27(4):648-9.