A Study of Symptomatic And Clinical Profile In Dengue Patients
A Study Of Symptomatic Dengue
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70284/njirm.v4i6.2258Keywords:
Clinical Profile, Dengue fever, Dengue shock syndrome and Symptomatic ProfileAbstract
Background: Dengue infection is caused by any one of four distinct but closely related dengue virus. Infection with any of the four dengue serotypes can produce the full spectrum of illness and severity. Early clinical recognition of dengue infection and anticipatory treatment for those who develop DHF or DSS can save lives. Objectives: To know the common presenting symptoms and clinical profile of dengue patients presenting at tertiary care hospital . Methods; A cross sectional study was carried out on all the cases of dengue fever and dengue hemorrhagic fever admitted in medicine department, BJ Medical College, Ahmadabad from May-2007 to December 2009. Results: dengue is common in age group between 11-30 years, which includes almost 76% of total patients. Dengue fever in the absence of haemorrhage of features of shock is the commonest entity. It includes 80% of all patients. Cases of dengue haemorrhagic fever are 14% and only 6% of patients develop dengue shock syndrome. Fever is most common feature by which patients present themselves at hospital.90% of the patients having symptom called fever in our study. Most common clinical finding was hepatomegaly in 20% of patients. Conclusion: The dengue fever is common in 11-30 years of age group with fever is more common presentation.
References
2. CDC.DengueBulletin.http://www.cdc.gov/dengue/clinicallab/clinical.html (date accessed 23-9-13)
3. Dengue: Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and control in sub-Saharan Africa and 13 countries in South America. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2009.
4. Daniel R, Rajmohanan, Philip AZ.A study of clinical profile of dengue fever in Kollam, Kerala, India. Dengue Bulletin-vol 29, 2005.
5. Nimmannitya S.Clinical manifestation of dengue/dengue haemorhagic fever.New Delhi: WHO regional office for South East Asia; 1992;55-61