4.6 Article

Increased presepsin levels are associated with the severity of fungal bloodstream infections

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 13, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206089

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Presepsin is a widely recognized biomarker for sepsis. However, little is known about the usefulness of presepsin in invasive fungal infection. The aim of this study was to determine the plasma levels of presepsin in fungal bloodstream infections and to investigate whether it reflects the disease severity, similar to its utility in bacterial infections. Methods We prospectively measured presepsin in plasma samples from participants with fungemia from April 2016 to December 2017. The associations of C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and presepsin concentrations with the severity of fungemia were statistically analyzed. In vitro assay was performed by incubating Escherichia coli, Candida albicans, and lipopolysaccharide to whole blood cells collected from healthy subjects; after 3 h, the presepsin concentration was measured in the supernatant and was compared among the bacteria, fungi, and LPS groups. Results Presepsin was increased in 11 patients with fungal bloodstream infections. Serial measurement of presepsin levels demonstrated a prompt decrease in 7 patients in whom treatment was effective, but no decrease or further increase in the patients with poor improvement. Additionally, presepsin concentrations were significantly correlated with the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (r = 0.89, p < 0.001). In vitro assay with co-incubation of C. albicans and human whole blood cells indicated that the viable cells of C. albicans caused an increase in presepsin, as seen with E. coli. Conclusions Plasma presepsin levels increased in patients with fungal bloodstream infection, with positive association with the disease severity. Presepsin could be a useful biomarker of sepsis secondary to fungal infections.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据