4.6 Article

Tuberculous meningitis in the elderly

期刊

QJM-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
卷 115, 期 6, 页码 381-387

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/qjmed/hcab162

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Significant differences in clinical, CSF, and radiological characteristics exist between elderly and young TBM patients, with the survival rate remaining dismal in the elderly.
Objective Although the elderly population remains at high risk for tuberculosis, studies addressing tuberculous meningitis (TBM) in this age group are scarce. The present study aimed to evaluate the spectrum and outcome of geriatric TBM and document differences between older and young patients. Methods A prospective cohort study was conducted in the adult TBM patients admitted at PGIMER, Chandigarh (India). Consecutive older patients aged 60 years and above were enrolled from January 2019 to December 2020, and young adults aged 18-59 years were enrolled from July 2019 to December 2019. Results Fifty-five older patients with a mean age of 66.6 years and 73 young patients with a mean age of 35.1 years were enrolled. At admission, older patients were more likely to have altered mental status (96.4% vs. 78.1%, P = 0.003) and advanced disease with British medical research council staging 2 or 3 (98.2% vs. 89.0%, P = 0.043); however, headache (38.2% vs. 67.1%, P = 0.001), vomiting (18.2% vs. 35.6%, P = 0.030) and fever (80.0% vs. 91.8%, P = 0.052) were less common. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) abnormalities were less marked in older patients, with a significant difference in median total cells (70 vs. 110/mu l, P = 0.013). Hydrocephalous and infarct were common neuroimaging abnormalities in both groups; however, tuberculomas were significantly less in the elderly (15.1% vs. 35.2%, P = 0.012). Older patients had a significantly low survival rate (56.4% vs. 76.7%, P = 0.021). Conclusion Significant differences in clinical, CSF and radiological characteristics exist between elderly and young TBM patients, with survival remains dismal in the elderly.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据