4.2 Article

Diagnostic value of β-D-glucan alone or combined with Candida score, colonization index and C-reactive protein for candidemia

期刊

出版社

J INFECTION DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
DOI: 10.3855/jidc.15711

关键词

Candidemia; (1,3)-beta-D-glucan; C-reactive protein; ICU

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the diagnostic value of Candida score, colonization index, serum BDG detection, and routine laboratory parameters in ICU patients. The findings suggest that serum BDG may be useful for predicting candidemia in ICU, and combining BDG with CRP could be a stronger predictor for candidemia.
Introduction: Candidemia causes high mortality and is occuring at increasing rate in intensive care units (ICUs). (1,3)-beta-D-glucan (BDG) testing is recommended in neutropenic patients. However the usefulness of BDG in ICUs is unclear. Methodology: This study was conducted to compare the diagnostic value of Candida score (CS), colonization index (CI), serum BDG detection, and routine laboratory parameters in ICU patients. Characteristics and laboratory data of 83 patients (15 patients with candidemia and 68 patients without candidemia) were evaluated. Results: Median serum BDG was significantly higher in the candidemia group (129 pg/mL vs. 36 pg/mL,p < 0.001). BDG assay with standard cut-off value >= of 80 pg/mL had 93.33% sensitivity and 64.18% specificity (Areas under the ROC curve (AUC): 0.788). This study concluded that the optimal cut-off value for BDG assay was 112 pg/mL with sensitivity of 86.67% and specificity of 82.09% (AUC: 0.844). C-reactive protein (CRP) with optimal cut-off value >= 85 mg/L and BDG >= 80 pg/mL had the highest AUC (0.862, 95% CI: 0.768 -0.928) with sensitivity 93.33% and specificity 79.1%. Conclusions: Predicting candidemia is essential in critically ill patients who are at high risk and have high mortality rates. The results of this study suggest that BDG testing is useful for predicting candidemia in ICU. However, BDG combined with CRP may be a stronger predictor for candidemia.

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

4.2
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