| Literature DB >> 30547819 |
Katrine Saldern Aagaard1, Anette Drøhse Kjeldsen2,3, Pernille Mathiesen Tørring4, Anders Green5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hereditary Haemorrhagic Telangiectasia (HHT) is an autosomal dominant genetic disorder with a wide variety of clinical manifestations due to the presence of multiple arteriovenous malformations in various tissues and organs.Entities:
Keywords: Comorbidity; HHT; Hereditary haemorrhagic telangiectasia; Hospitalisation; Infections
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30547819 PMCID: PMC6295040 DOI: 10.1186/s13023-018-0962-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Orphanet J Rare Dis ISSN: 1750-1172 Impact factor: 4.123
Potentially HHT-related diagnoses
| Potentially HHT-related diagnoses | Subgroups of diagnoses |
|---|---|
| Non-traumatic bleedings | CNS bleedings |
| GI bleedings | |
| Epistaxis | |
| Other unspecified bleedings | |
| Possible bleedings | |
| Bacterial infections | Infections in joints and bones |
| Infections in lower airways | |
| Infections in wounds and skin | |
| Other unspecified infections | |
| CNS infections | |
| Sepsis | |
| Thromboembolisms | CNS thromboembolisms |
| Other unspecified thromboembolisms | |
| Other vascular conditions | Other CNS vascular conditions |
| Other unspecified vascular conditions | |
| PAVMs | PAVMs |
| Other HHT-related contacts | Other HHT-related contacts |
| Non-HHT-related conditions | Non-HHT-related conditions |
First event of diagnosis
| LPR data | Clinical data | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cases | Controls | Cases | Controls | i value | ||
| Total number of patients | 73 | 218 | 73 | 218 | ||
| Patients with at least one relevant event registered | 73 | 214 | 62 | 90 | ||
| Potentially HHT-related diagnoses | ||||||
| Non-traumatic bleedings | 44 (60%) | 42 (19%) | < 0.001 | 47 (64%) | 16 (7%) | < 0.001 |
| Bacterial infections | 40 (55%) | 84 (38%) | 0.015 | 29 (40%) | 61 (28%) | 0.06 |
| Thromboembolisms | 8 (11%) | 38 (17%) | 0.19 | 9 (12%) | 29 (13%) | 0.83 |
| Other vascular conditions | 14 (19%) | 48 (22%) | 0.610 | 5 (7%) | 32 (15%) | 0.0822 |
| PAVMs | 6 (8%) | 0 | < 0.001 | 27 (37%) | 0 | < 0.001 |
| Other HHT-related conditions | 53 (72%) | 0 | < 0.001 | 43 (59%) | 0 | < 0.001 |
| Non-HHT-related conditions | 70 (95%) | 210 (96%) | 0.8646 | |||
| Selected Subgroups of diagnoses | ||||||
| Epistaxis | 27 (37%) | 4 (2%) | < 0.001 | 33 (45%) | 2 (1%) | < 0.001 |
| Infections in joints and bones | 6 (8%) | 1 (0.5%) | < 0.001 | 5 (7%) | 0 | < 0.001 |
The diagnoses were grouped according to clinical relevance for HHT. The time period covers January 1st 1995 to January 1st 2015
The group PAVMs included all patients hospitalised while evaluated for PAVM, in 23 patients PAVM were seen at CT-scan or Pulmonary angiography, while 4 had positive contrast echocardiography, but no PAVM were identified at pulmonary angiography
Infections in Joints and bones and PAVM among cases and controls
| Screening PAVM | PAVM | Age at inclusion | Age at infection | Type of infection LPR | Manual validation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient 1 | Yes | Small PAVM discovered at time of infection. Embolisation performed | 51 | 69 | Osteomyelitis vertebrae | Same |
| Patient 2 | No thanks | ? | 61 | 68 | Staphylococci, Arthritis and polyarthritis | Same |
| patient 3 | No thanks | ? | 32 | 34 | Osteomyelitis and periostitis in the mandible and maxillae | False registration, patient excluded from analysis |
| Patient 4 | Yes | No | 56 | 68 | Infectious spondylitis purulent intervertebral Discitis | Same |
| Patient 5 | Yes | PAVMs discovered after infection | 58 | 65 | Infectious spondylitis or vertebral Osteomyelitis | Same |
| Patient 6 | Yes | Large PAVMs, did not wish to be treated | 71 | 77 | Osteomyelitis without specification/ | same |
| Control 1 | Not relevant | – | 49 | 56 | Borrelia arthritis | Patient seen in other hospital |
Details on all infections in Joints and bones (including type) and presence of PAVM as registered (LPR) in 6 patients and 1 control. In the clinical data patient 3 was excluded as the registration was false. Furthermore, the infection in the control was not identified in the clinical data as the patient was seen in another hospital