cytolytic vaginosis Archives - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
, , , , , Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2020;42(10):634-641
, , , , , To identify clinical, microscopic, and biochemical characteristics that differentiate cytolytic vaginosis (CV) from vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC).
The present cross-sectional study analyzed the vaginal contents of 24 non-pregnant women aged 18 to 42 years who were attended at the Genital Infections Clinic at Centro de Atenção Integral à Saúde da Mulher da Universidade Estadual de Campinas (CAISM-UNICAMP). They were diagnosed either with (CV = 8, VVC = 8) or without vulvovaginitis or vaginal dysbiosis (controls). The socio-demographic, clinical, and gynecological data were obtained from a detailed patient interview. Samples of the vaginal contents were collected for analysis of vaginal pH, gram stain, and specific fungal culture. The Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher exact tests were used to compare the differences between the groups. Odds ratios were used to compare the categorical variables. The significance level was considered at p < 0.05.
Both women with CV and VVC had a lumpy vaginal discharge (p = 0,002) and vaginal hyperemia (p = 0.001), compared with controls. The inflammatory process was more intense in the VVC group (p = 0.001). In the CV group, there was statistical significance for the lactobacillus amount (p = 0.006), vaginal epithelium lysis (p = 0.001), and vaginal pH (p = 0.0002).
Cytolytic vaginosis and VVC diagnoses rarely differ on clinical characteristics but have different laboratorial findings. The present study highlights the importance of conducting an accurate investigation through laboratory tests rather than clinical criteria to avoid misdiagnosis.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2020;42(10):634-641
, , , , , To identify clinical, microscopic, and biochemical characteristics that differentiate cytolytic vaginosis (CV) from vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC).
The present cross-sectional study analyzed the vaginal contents of 24 non-pregnant women aged 18 to 42 years who were attended at the Genital Infections Clinic at Centro de Atenção Integral à Saúde da Mulher da Universidade Estadual de Campinas (CAISM-UNICAMP). They were diagnosed either with (CV = 8, VVC = 8) or without vulvovaginitis or vaginal dysbiosis (controls). The socio-demographic, clinical, and gynecological data were obtained from a detailed patient interview. Samples of the vaginal contents were collected for analysis of vaginal pH, gram stain, and specific fungal culture. The Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher exact tests were used to compare the differences between the groups. Odds ratios were used to compare the categorical variables. The significance level was considered at p < 0.05.
Both women with CV and VVC had a lumpy vaginal discharge (p = 0,002) and vaginal hyperemia (p = 0.001), compared with controls. The inflammatory process was more intense in the VVC group (p = 0.001). In the CV group, there was statistical significance for the lactobacillus amount (p = 0.006), vaginal epithelium lysis (p = 0.001), and vaginal pH (p = 0.0002).
Cytolytic vaginosis and VVC diagnoses rarely differ on clinical characteristics but have different laboratorial findings. The present study highlights the importance of conducting an accurate investigation through laboratory tests rather than clinical criteria to avoid misdiagnosis.
