4.7 Article

Evaluation of a new point-of-care diagnostic test measuring inflammation in emergency settings

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-46347-x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a new point-of-care test, measuring erythrocyte aggregation kinetics (EAK), in identifying patients with underlying inflammation in emergency settings. The results showed that EAK is a better marker of inflammation compared to C-Reactive Protein (CRP), with higher specificity and sensitivity.
Erythrocyte aggregation kinetics is accelerated in diseases with a strong inflammation component. This study aimed to evaluate whether, in an emergency setting, a new point-of-care test measuring erythrocyte aggregation kinetics (EAK) can identify patients with underlying inflammation. Patients visiting an emergency department and needing a blood exam were successively included. EAK was measured at the point-of-care in 20 s directly on the blood samples collected in regular tubes without any manipulation. The primary measure was EAK's half-life during the first 5 s (EAK5s). Each patient's inflammation status was assessed blind to the EAK test results. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves for inflammation status were built. 268 patients had their EAK5s measured, and a clear inflammation status was determined for 214 patients (65 had inflammation). Mean EAK5s were 2.18 s and 1.75 s for no inflammation and inflammation groups respectively (p < 0.001). EAK5s appears to be a better inflammation marker than C-Reactive protein (CRP), with an area under the ROC curve of 0.845 compared to 0.806 for CRP (p < 0.0001). The Youden threshold for prediction of inflammation was 1.86 s with 84.6% (78.5-89.9%) specificity and 70.8% (60-81.5%) sensitivity. Point-of-care EAK is an easily measured, immediately available marker of inflammation with a better predictive power than CRP's.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available