NONSPECIFIC FACTORS OF ORGANISM RESISTANCE IN PATIENTS WITH ERYSIPELAS
Summary. Aim. The article is aimed to assess the nonspecific factors of the body’s resistance in patients with erysipelas and in the development of sepsis in these patients.
Materials and methods. 114 case histories of patients who underwent inpatient treatment in the center of purulent-septic surgery in the Non-profit municipal enterprise “City Hospital № 3” in Zaporizhzhia for the period 2019-2020 were analyzed.
According to the forms of the disease, the patients were distributed as follows: erythematous — 24 (21.0 %), bullous — 28 (24.6 %), phlegmonous — 48 (42.1 %), necrotic — 14 (12.3 %). Recurrent cases of the disease were noted in 21 patients. From them: with erythematous form — 4 (16.7 %), bullous — 5 (17.9 %), phlegmonous — 9 (18.7 %), necrotic — 3 (21.4 %). Among 10 patients, the disease was complicated by sepsis. 6 patients died, mortality was 60 %.
Results and their discussion. Depending on the detected disorders, the patients were divided into three groups: with uniformly activated immune status; with a suppressive type of immune response; with a mixed type of immune status, where with a normal or suppressive cellular link of immunity, activation of some indicators of the humoral link against the background of a normal or reduced level of complement is determined, which indicates the sensitization of T-cell populations with an antigen and the development of autoimmune processes.
Conclusions. An increase in complement levels is an indicator of active antigen-antibody binding reactions in patients with erysipelas. Weak NBT-reaction in patients with sepsis indicates depletion of the enzymological activity of neutrophilic leukocytes and, to some extent, can serve as a predictor of a lethal outcome. An increase in the rates of phagocytosis is a prognostically favorable sign indicating the effective removal of the antigenic material of immune complexes from the patient’s body.
2. Gopaca GV, Ermakova SA. Rozha: sovremennoe sostoyanie problemy. Nauchnyj al’manah. 2016;1(2):364-6 [In Rus.].
3. Ratnikova LI, SHip SA, Bespalova MK, i dr. Komorbidnost’ rozhi i endokrinnyh zabolevanij. Nauchnyj al’manah.2016;53(19):341-6 [In Rus.].
4. Chernushenko EF, Kogosova LS, Goncharova SI, i dr. Metodicheskie rekomendacii. Unificirovannye immunologicheskie metody obsledovaniya bol’nyh na stacionarnom i ambulatornom etapah lecheniya. Kiev: MZ USSR, 1988, 22 s [In Ukr.].
5. Bashkina OA, Samotrueva MA, Azhikova AK, Pahnova LR. Nejroimmunnoendokrinnaya regulyaciya fiziologicheskih i patofiziologicheskih processov v kozhe. Medicinskaya immunologiya. 2019;21:807-20.
6. Petrov RP, Haitov RM, Oradovskaya IV. Immunologicheskij monitoring bol’shih grupp naseleniya. Immunologiya.1992;4:43-53 [In Rus.].
7. Seymour CW, Liu VX, Iwashyna TJ, et al. Assessment of Clinical Criteria for Sepsis: For the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;23(8):762-74. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.0288.
8. Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani WW, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(3):304-77. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-017-4683-6. Epub 2017 Jan 18.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.