Toxic Shock Syndrome: Clinical and Laboratory Features in 15 Patients

Tofte, Robert W.

doi:10.7326/0003-4819-94-2-149

Cited by 98 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…All surgical wounds should be cultured, explored, and débrided even though their appearance does not indicate the presence of infection. Antibiotic agents seem to be less effective in the outcome of the acute disease, but they are recommended as they significantly reduce the recurrence rate and risk of bacteremia, and they can treat the occasional patient with staphylococcal bacteremia or bacteriuria [5,17]. The essential measures are continuous monitoring of respiratory rate, heart rate, blood pressure, urine output, central venous pressure, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, chest radiography, blood gases, and serum electrolytes.…”

Section: Case Reportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toxic shock syndrome presented in an adult burn patient: a case report and review of the literature

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Case Reportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toxic shock syndrome presented in an adult burn patient: a case report and review of the literature

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the side effects of in vivo protein A perfusion are reminiscent of the clinical features of toxic shock syndrome where 5. aureus has been thought to be the causative microorganism [51,52], Most (about 95%) of the strains isolated from pa tients with different staphyloccocal infec tions contain cell-bound protein A and re lease this protein into the surrounding me dium [17], The use of pure protein A (when used in perfusion) obviously showed fewer side effects than crude preparations [14], where other staphyloccocal proteins could also be involved in toxicity (during protein A perfusion) as may be noted in the symptom atology of toxic shock syndrome.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ex vivo and in vivo Protein A Perfusion: Background, Basic Investigations, and First Clinical Experiences

Samtleben¹,

Schmidt²,

Gurland³

1987

Blood Purif

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the past several years clinical protein A perfusion has attracted much attention because it allows to selectively remove IgG subclasses 1, 2, 4 and probably IgG-containing immune complexes, and has a tumoricidal effect in experimental animals and in some cancer patients. Due to several drawbacks, this therapy is not yet generally accepted. Our first experience with laboratory and clinical protein A perfusions confirms several limitations of this new apheresis therapy. Plasma IgG extraction in the ex vivo system under investigation and during clinical application of protein A perfusion reached a 10:1 ratio of grams IgG removed per gram solid-phase protein A only in 2 of 5 runs. Nevertheless, the absolute amount of IgG removed was very low in all runs due to the restricted protein A load (maximum 200 mg) per column. Removal capacity can be increased by a two-column switchover system with subsequent perfusion and elution. Furthermore, the side effects observed in both in vivo treatments exceeded by far those of other extracorporeal therapies and had not been observed in more than 1,200 unselective plasma exchanges or in 50 cascade filtrations in our center. C3a generation in protein A perfusion is, however, comparable to cascade filtration, but exceeds that of unselective plasma exchange and is lower than in hemodialysis. Consequently, side effects in protein A perfusion cannot be correlated with the total amount of anaphylatoxin generated but may be due to a leakage of protein A or contaminants. Clinical application of protein A perfusion needs a more detailed elaboration in respect to biocompatibility, removal capacity, and the significance of the induced biological effects.

show abstract

“…The case described above would be a typical case (16)(17)(18)(19), but by no means an exclusive representative of TSS. Cases of TSS have occurred in non-menstruating women and in men.…”

Section: Signs Symptoms and Treat Men^mentioning

confidence: 99%

Toxic Shock Syndrome

Helgerson¹

1982

Women & Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Toxic-shock syndrome (TSS) was first described in 1978, but cases of illness meeting the TSS case definition (presence of fever, hypotension, rash, and desquamation, as well as involvement of three organ systems and absence of evidence for other etiologies) have occumd for many years. Awareness of TSS grew rapidly among the general public and persons in the health-care professions during the last quarter of 1980 when tampon use was associated with the development of TSS. However. TSS is almost certainly caused by a toxin produced by Sraphylococcns aureus. This article describes steps in the evolution of understanding TSS: recognition of the syndrme, discovery of risk factors, elucidation of the probable cause, and description of the clinical picture and the epidemiology. The article concludes with a list of unanswered questions.

show abstract

Toxic Shock Syndrome: Clinical and Laboratory Features in 15 Patients

Cited by 98 publications

References 10 publications

Toxic shock syndrome presented in an adult burn patient: a case report and review of the literature

Toxic shock syndrome presented in an adult burn patient: a case report and review of the literature

Ex vivo and in vivo Protein A Perfusion: Background, Basic Investigations, and First Clinical Experiences

Toxic Shock Syndrome

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About