Relationship of routine examinations and treatment with the etiological diagnosis of acute infectious diarrhea

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1673-8640.2018.05.001

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective To analyze the relationship of routine examinations and treatment with the etiological diagnosis of acute infectious diarrhea,and to provide a reference for the diagnosis and treatment of acute infectious diarrhea. Methods Totally,962 specimens of acute infectious diarrhea patients were collected,and the pathogens were identified. Blood routine examination and stool routine examination were performed. The relationship of the results of blood routine examination and stool routine examination and treatment with the etiological diagnosis was analyzed. Results A total of 295 pathogens,including 239 bacteria and 56 viruses,were determined from 962 specimens. There was statistical significance for the abnormal proportions of white blood cell （WBC） count,neutrophil percentage （NE%）,abnormal NE% and lymphocyte percentage （LYM%） between patients infected with bacteria and viruses（P<0.05）. The proportion of water stool was higher in patients infected with viruses than that in patients infected with bacteria （P=0.002）,and the proportion of mucous stool was higher in patients infected with bacteria （P=0.049）. The consistency rate was 72.2%（213/295） between empirical treatment and pathological diagnosis results. Conclusions The routine examinations could provide a reference for the diagnosis and treatment of acute infectious diarrhea,while accurate and comprehensive pathogenic determination is also needed for its precious clinical diagnosis and treatment.

Key words: Blood routine examination, Stool routine examination, Empirical treatment, Acute infectious diarrhea, Correlation

CLC Number:

R446.5

YANG Feng, ZHANG Jinghao, FANG Yi, GUO Mingquan, LIU Yue, ZHAO Hu, ZHANG Yanmei. Relationship of routine examinations and treatment with the etiological diagnosis of acute infectious diarrhea[J]. Laboratory Medicine, 2018, 33(5): 379-383.

Figures/Tables 4

References 15

[1]	LOZANO R, NAGHAVI M, FOREMAN K, et al.Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010[J]. Lancet, 2012, 380(9859): 2095-2128.
[2]	GBD 2015 Mortality and Cause of Death Collaborators. Global, regional, and national life expectancy, all-cause mortality, and cause-specific mortality for 249 causes of death, 1980-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015BD 2015 Mortality and Cause of Death Collaborators. Global, regional, and national life expectancy, all-cause mortality, and cause-specific mortality for 249 causes of death, 1980-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015[J]. Lancet, 2016, 388(10053): 1459-1544.
[3]	DAS J K, BHUTTA Z A.Global challenges in acute diarrhea[J]. Curr Opin Gastroenterol, 2016, 32(1): 18-23.
[4]	RIDDLE M S, DUPONT H L, CONNOR B A.ACG clinical guideline: diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of acute diarrheal infections in adults[J]. Am J Gastroenterol, 2016, 111(5): 602-622.
[5]	JIA L, LIN C, GAO Z, et al.Prevalence and factors associated with different pathogens of acute diarrhea in adults in Beijing, China[J]. J Infect Dev Ctries, 2016, 10(11): 1200-1207.
[6]	FARTHING M, SALAM M A, LINDBERG G, et al.Acute diarrhea in adults and children: a global perspective[J]. J Clin Gastroenterol, 2013, 47(1): 12-20.
[7]	SCALLAN E, HOEKSTRA R M, ANGULO F J, et al.Foodborne illness acquired in the United States-major pathogens[J]. Emerg Infect Dis, 2011, 17(1): 7-15.
[8]	崔恩博, 陈素明, 张成龙, 等. 2009—2013年我国16省市社区获得性细菌性腹泻病原菌分布及临床耐药分析[J]. 传染病信息,2014,27(3): 143-147.
[9]	骆玲飞, 王小光, 李翠珍, 等. 2014—2016年上海市闵行区病毒性腹泻病病原学监测研究[J]. 复旦学报(医学版), 2017, 44(5): 617-620.
[10]	HILMARSDOTTIR I, BALDVINSDOTTIR G E, HAROARDOTTIR H, et al.Enteropathogens in acute diarrhea: a general practice-based study in a Nordic country[J]. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis, 2012, 31(7): 1501-1509.
[11]	HUHULESCU S, KISS R, BRETTLECKER M, et al.Etiology of acute gastroenteritis in three sentinel general practices, Austria 2007[J]. Infection, 2009, 37(2): 103-108.
[12]	BLAIR J M, WEBBER M A, BAYLAY A J, et al.Molecular mechanisms of antibiotic resistance[J]. Nat Rev Microbiol, 2015, 13(1): 42-51.
[13]	胡付品, 郭燕, 朱德妹, 等. 2016年中国CHINET细菌耐药性监测[J]. 中国感染与化疗杂志, 2017, 17(5): 481-491.
[14]	WATTS T, BARIGOU M, NASH G B.Effects of vessel size, cell sedimentation and haematocrit on the adhesion of leukocytes and platelets from flowing blood[J]. Biorheology, 2015, 52(5-6): 391-404.
[15]	何彦海. 成人急性水样便腹泻的治疗[J]. 实用医技杂志, 1997, 4(10): 780-781.

组别	例数	WBC计数（×10⁹/L）	NE%（%）	LYM%（%）	HCT（%）
细菌性腹泻组	239	10.88±3.12	76.79±13.94	17.82±9.65	42.02±3.88
病毒性腹泻组	56	9.39±4.40	73.20±11.28	18.81±8.37	41.87±3.74
t值		1.98	1.53	1.33	1.08
P值		0.019	0.044	0.480	0.793

组别	例数	WBC计数（×10⁹/L）	NE%（%）	LYM%（%）	HCT（%）
细菌性腹泻组	239	10.88±3.12	76.79±13.94	17.82±9.65	42.02±3.88
病毒性腹泻组	56	9.39±4.40	73.20±11.28	18.81±8.37	41.87±3.74
t值		1.98	1.53	1.33	1.08
P值		0.019	0.044	0.480	0.793

组别	例数	WBC计数>10×10⁹/L		NE% >75.00%		LYM%<20.00%		HCT>49.00%
组别	例数	例数	构成比（%）	例数	构成比（%）	例数	构成比（%）	例数	构成比（%）
细菌性腹泻组	239	105	43.9	148	61.9	156	65.3	13	5.4
病毒性腹泻组	56	19	33.9	22	39.3	27	48.2	5	8.9
P值		0.172		0.002		0.026		0.326

组别	例数	WBC计数>10×10⁹/L		NE% >75.00%		LYM%<20.00%		HCT>49.00%
组别	例数	例数	构成比（%）	例数	构成比（%）	例数	构成比（%）	例数	构成比（%）
细菌性腹泻组	239	105	43.9	148	61.9	156	65.3	13	5.4
病毒性腹泻组	56	19	33.9	22	39.3	27	48.2	5	8.9
P值		0.172		0.002		0.026		0.326

组别	例数	WBC阳性	酵母及虫卵	粪便性状
组别	例数	WBC阳性	酵母及虫卵	糊便	稀便	水样便	黏液便	脓血便
细菌性腹泻组	239	57(23.8)	0（0.0）	58（24.3）	91（38.1）	72（30.1）	16（6.7）	2（0.8）
病毒性腹泻组	56	12(21.4)	0（0.0）	7（12.5）	19（33.9）	29（51.8）	0（0.0）	1（1.8）
P值	0.700			0.056	0.564	0.002	0.049	0.469