INVESTIGATION OF EOSINOPHIL, LYMPHOCYTE AND MONOCYTE VALUES ACCORDING TO AGE AND GENDER IN INSECT BITES IN THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT

Öz

Objective: The purpose of this study was to look at the seasonal distribution, age and gender distribution, and eosinophil, lymphocyte, and monocyte values according to age and gender in cases of insect bites that were brought to the emergency room over the course of a year. Materials and method: Retrospective analysis was performed on patients who were brought to the emergency room between 1.12.2021 and 1.12.2022 and had the ICD code W57 (Diagnosis Code - Bitten or stung by Nonvenomous Insects and Other Nonvenomous Arthropods). The following values were noted: age, gender, presenting season, CRP, Leukocyte, Platelet, Lymphocyte, Monocyte, Eosinophil, INR, PTZ, and Aptt levels. Findings: The study comprised a total of 694 patients—308 females and 386 males. The patients were 39.81 16.42 years old on average. Spring saw 9.4% of the patients, summer saw 67%, and fall saw 23.6%. According to the patients' gender, there were significant differences in the eosinophil (t:-3.535; p:0.0010.01) and monocyte (t:-4.909; p:0.0010.01) values. Regarding the season in which the patients were admitted, significant differences in lymphocyte (F:7.045; p:0.0010.01) and monocyte (F:3.208; p:0.0410.05) values were discovered. When the disparities in eosinophil, lymphocyte, and monocyte values were evaluated in relation to the patients' ages, significant differences in monocyte values were discovered (F:2.552; p:0.0270.05). Result: We commonly see insect bites in emergency rooms, which we can usually cure with straightforward remedies or occasionally without treatment, but in some unfortunate circumstances, we may have to deal with major issues and allergic responses (4). Almost little studies have been done on the seasonal distribution and evaluation of blood tests according to age and gender, despite the fact that there are many studies on this topic in the literature. We think that more study on this topic is necessary.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• INSECT BITES
• EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT
• EOSINOPHIL
• LYMPHOCYTE AND MONOCYTE

Kaynakça

1. 1. Söyük S, KURTULUŞ SA. Acil servislerde yaşanan sorunların çalışanlar gözünden değerlendirilmesi. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2017;6(4):44-56.
2. 2. Altıntop I, Tatlı M. Acil servis yoğunluğuna farklı bir bakış: anket çalışması. Journal of Anatolian Medical Research. 2017;2(1):45-57.
3. 3. Organization WH. Declaration of alma-ata. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe; 1978.
4. 4. Başer DA, Kahveci R, Meltem K, KASIM İ, Şencan İ, Özkara A. Etkin sağlık sistemleri için güçlü birinci basamak. Ankara Medical Journal. 2015;15(1).
5. 5. Macinko J, Starfield B, Shi L. The contribution of primary care systems to health outcomes within Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, 1970–1998. Health services research. 2003;38(3):831-65.
6. 6. Gulliford MC, Jack RH, Adams G, Ukoumunne OC. Availability and structure of primary medical care services and population health and health care indicators in England. BMC Health Services Research. 2004;4(1):1-8.
7. 7. Schäfer WL, Boerma WG, Kringos DS, De Maeseneer J, Gress S, Heinemann S, et al. QUALICOPC, a multi-country study evaluating quality, costs and equity in primary care. BMC Fam Pract. 2011;12:115.
8. 8. Parchman ML, Culler S. Primary care physicians and avoidable hospitalizations. J Fam Pract. 1994;39(2):123-8.

9. 9. Zengin N. “SAĞLIK HAKKI” ve SAĞLIK HİZMETLERİNİN SUNUMU. Sağlıkta Performans ve Kalite Dergisi. 2010;1(1):44-52.
10. 10. Başol E. GELİŞMEKTE OLAN ÜLKELERDE STRATEJİ: SAĞLIK SİSTEMİNDE SEVK ZİNCİRİ. Balkan Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2015;4(8):128-40.
11. 11. Çınar O, Çevik E, Salman N, Cömert B. Emergency severity index triaj sistemi ve bir üniversite hastanesi acil servisinde uygulama deneyimi. Türkiye Acil Tıp Dergisi. 2010;10(3):126-31.
12. 12. Eitel DR, Travers DA, Rosenau AM, Gilboy N, Wuerz RC. The emergency severity index triage algorithm version 2 is reliable and valid. Acad Emerg Med. 2003;10(10):1070-80.
13. 13. Tanabe P, Gimbel R, Yarnold PR, Kyriacou DN, Adams JG. Reliability and validity of scores on The Emergency Severity Index version 3. Acad Emerg Med. 2004;11(1):59-65.
14. 14. Pereira S, Oliveira e Silva A, Quintas M, Almeida J, Marujo C, Pizarro M, et al. Appropriateness of emergency department visits in a Portuguese university hospital. Ann Emerg Med. 2001;37(6):580-6.
15. 15. Carret ML, Fassa AG, Kawachi I. Demand for emergency health service: factors associated with inappropriate use. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:131.
16. 16. Miyazawa A, Maeno T, Shaku F, Tsutsumi M, Kurihara H, Takayashiki A, et al. Inappropriate use of the emergency department for nonurgent conditions: Patient characteristics and associated factors at a Japanese hospital. J Gen Fam Med. 2019;20(4):146-53.
17. 17. Idil H, Kilic TY, Toker İ, Dura Turan K, Yesilaras M. Non-urgent adult patients in the emergency department: Causes and patient characteristics. Turk J Emerg Med. 2018;18(2):71-4.
18. 18. Sempere-Selva T, Peiró S, Sendra-Pina P, Martínez-Espín C, López-Aguilera I. Inappropriate use of an accident and emergency department: magnitude, associated factors, and reasons--an approach with explicit criteria. Ann Emerg Med. 2001;37(6):568-79.
19. 19. Almeida A, Vales J. The impact of primary health care reform on hospital emergency department overcrowding: Evidence from the Portuguese reform. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2020;35(1):368-77.