Background: Vascular purpura can be the clinical expression of infectious, inflammatory, drug-related, neoplastic, and endocrine pathologies. To date, there is no consensus codifying the investigation of vascular purpura, especially when it is isolated.
Patients and methods: We proposed to study through a retrospective study of 73 cases of vascular purpura, occurring during the period 2004-2019 in our internal medicine department, the contribution of various clinical and paraclinical data to the aetiological diagnosis of vascular purpura. Data were considered to be contributory only when they constituted a solid argument in favour of the aetiological diagnosis of vascular purpura.
Results: Our series involved 73 patients including 41 women and 32 men (Gender ratio: 0.78). Mean age was 49 ± 17 years [16-80]. Vascular purpura was isolated in 3% of cases. For the remaining patients, it was associated with functional (91%) or physical (48%) manifestations. It was associated with other skin lesions in 45% of cases. The accepted aetiologies were primary vasculitis (26%), drug-related (15%), infectious (11%) and secondary to connectivitis (10%). No cause was found in a third of cases. Clinical data alone made it possible to suggest the aetiology in more than half of cases. Special investigations were contributory in 46% of cases. The course was contributory in 18% of patients for drug-related and paraneoplastic causes.
Conclusion: vascular purpura's diverse clinical presentation presents diagnostic challenges. Aetiologies include vasculitis, drug reactions, infections, and connective tissue disorders. Comprehensive clinical assessment is essential.
Keywords: aetiology; cutaneous leucocytoclastic vasculitis; vascular purpura.
© 2024 The Mediterranean Journal of Rheumatology (MJR).