Abstracts / International Journal of Infectious Diseases 73S (2018) 3–398 cal 24%, gastrointestinal 10.5%, respiratory 4.5%, neurological 0.5%, check-up 4%. Immunocompromised individuals amounted to 2%. Those who visited relatives/friends (VFR) were 21%. 77.5% returned from countries in South America (Argentina 21%, Brazil 21%, Paraguay 14%), 7% from Asia, and 4.5% from Africa. Diagnosis: dengue 27%, insect bites 6%, malaria 4%, myasis forunculoid 4%, cutaneous migrans larva 3%, leishmaniasis, intestinal amebiasis and tick bite 2% each, acute hepatitis, chikungunya, allergic reaction and mononucleosis 1.5% each, post-vaccination encephalitis, syphilis, HIV primary infection, side effects to mefloquine, tunga penetrans, eosinophilic, tuberculosis, B. hominis chronic diarrhea, typhoid fever and bed bites 0.7% each. Undiagnosed: 37%. Hispitalization: 15%. VFR subgroup (n = 32): 97% of consultations for non-specific febrile syndrome, dengue 78%. Other: malaria, typhoid fever, tuberculosis and mononucleosis. Hospitalization: 40.5%. Travelers returning from Paraguay amounted to 60% and those from Argentina 25%. All of them had stayed with family and none of them had consulted before travelling. Conclusion: The majority of consultations were from travelers to neighboring countries and to provinces in Argentina, none of whom had consulted prior to their trip. The main reason for consultation was febrile syndrome, and dengue was the most commonly diagnosed disease and cause of hospitalization. VFR travelers represent a special risk group given their pathology and low risk perception. We believe that Travel Medicine is of utmost importance, not only to protect individual health but also that of the communities from which the traveler returns and to which the traveler arrives. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2018.04.4183 UMP. 676 Yellow fever vaccine: misuse? V. Angeletti 1 , M.L. Yantorno 1,∗ , G. de la Parra 1 , M. Lares 1 , K. Aguilera 1 , I. Roccia Rossi 1 , Y. Nuccetelli 1 , N. Lattour 1 , D. Santonato 1 , E. Inwinkelried 1 , A. Coppola 1 , A. Coronel 2 , M. Torres 2 , P. Gabriela 2 1 HIGA San Martín, Infectious Diseases, La Plata, Argentina 2 HIGA San Martin, Vacunatorio, La Plata, Argentina Background: During 2016, the number of international travelers was over one billion, and it is still rising. Many of them travel to yellow fever (YF) risk areas and/or to areas where the vaccine is required. The current global shortage for vaccine production, along with the risk of serious adverse effects in certain traveler groups, means that we must make proper and rational use of the vaccine. The objective was to discuss whether the application of the YF vaccine in travelers is appropriate and rational. Methods & Materials: A voluntary survey was carried out among the travelers that received the YF vaccine at the Vaccination Center of a public hospital in the province of Buenos Aires between July-September 2017. Results: A total of 163 surveys were analyzed. Average age was 35 years (10-59). Immunocompromised 0.6%. No pregnant women. Median days before the trip 20 (0-133). Main destinations: South America 65% (Brazil 22%), Southeast Asia 15.5% (Thailand 13%) and Central America and Caribbean 9% (Bahamas 3%). They corresponded to: risk areas 27%, areas with vaccine requirement 29%, and risk areas with vaccine requirement 11.5%. 339 32.5% did not correspond to risk areas or areas with vaccine requirement. Reasons why they reported to be receiving the vaccine: requirement of the country to be visited 28%, medical advice 24%, recommendation by travel agency 19.5%, recommendation of family/friends 13%, media recommendation 8.5%, just because 4%, thinks he/she is at risk of getting sick 3%. Among those that had no indication (n = 53), the main reasons were: recommendation by travel agency 28.5%, recommendation of family/friends 26.5% and media recommendation 17%. 62% did not make a prior medical consultation. Conclusion: Almost a third of the travelers had no indication of getting the vaccine and they received it based, mainly, on recommendations received from travel agencies, family or friends, or the media. Despite the existence of a Travel Medicine Center within the same hospital, more than half of them did not make a prior medical consultation. Given the global shortage of the vaccine, we believe that medical evaluation can be a strategy to determine the real need for vaccination and to optimize its use. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2018.04.4184 UMP. 677 Pre travel consultation in individuals with chronic illnesses: perception of the risk in doctors and patients P. Fernandez Oses ∗ , M. Ariscancela, N. Barney, F. Nacinovich Instituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina Background: Travel medicine is based on the concept of the reduction of risk (the possibility of harm during the course of a planned trip). Some risks may be avoidable, and others may not, and certain travelers may confront special risks according to destination or the presence of chronic illnesses. However, the perception of risk not always is “perceived” adequately by the patient or the physician. Objective: To evaluate the common behavior in people with chronic illnesses regarding the risk of travel and the needs of preventive measures. Methods & Materials: A preliminary on line survey with 10 brief questions was performed and put it in the institutional web site, for free and voluntary access. Latin America, Asia and Africa was considered “at risk” destinations. Results: During April to June/2016 a total of 202 individuals answer the survey. Mean age: 55 yo; 91/202 (45%) were >60 yo. Male: 94/202 (46.5%). Almost 70% refers some underlying diseases (most frequent: cardiovascular, diabetes, respiratory). Ninety three percent (188/202) visited a doctor at least once in the last year (85.6% >2 visits). Although 127/188 (67.5%) had any underlying diseases, only 50/127 (39.4%) were advice about some vaccine during the visit. One hundred and seventy eight persons (88%) traveled at least once in the last 2 years; 65% (116/178) with any underlying diseases and 66/178 (37%) traveled to at least one destination “at risk”. However only 36/66 (50%) individuals carry out a medical consultation before travel (24 with any underlying diseases and 12 healthy). Conclusion: The pre travel consultation is the major opportunity to educate the travelers about health risks at the destination and to develop plans that minimize these risks. Also is a special scenario to advice about vaccine prevention according the