4.7 Article

Improved Early Detection of Sepsis in the ED With a Novel Monocyte Distribution Width Biomarker

期刊

CHEST
卷 152, 期 3, 页码 518-526

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2017.05.039

关键词

biomarker; blood; cell volume; ED; monocyte; sepsis

资金

  1. Beckman Coulter, Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Sepsis most often presents to the ED, and delayed detection is harmful. WBC count is often used to detect sepsis, but changes in WBC count size also correspond to sepsis. We sought to determine if volume increases of circulating immune cells add value to the WBC count for early sepsis detection in the ED. METHODS: A blinded, prospective cohort study was conducted in two different ED populations within a large academic hospital. RESULTS: Neutrophil and monocyte volume parameters were measured in conjunction with routine CBC testing on a UniCel DxH 800 analyzer at the time of ED admission and were evaluated for the detection of sepsis. There were 1,320 subjects in the ED consecutively enrolled and categorized as control subjects (n = 879) and those with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) (n = 203), infection (n = 140), or sepsis (n = 98). Compared with other parameters, monocyte distribution width (MDW) best discriminated sepsis from all other conditions (area under the curve [AUC], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.73-0.84; sensitivity, 0.77; specificity, 0.73; MDW threshold, 20.50), sepsis from SIRS (AUC, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.67-0.84), and severe sepsis from noninfected patients in the ED (AUC, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75-0.99; negative predictive value, 99%). The added value of MDW to WBC count was statistically significant (AUC, 0.89 for MDW + WBC vs 0.81 for WBC alone; P <.01); a decision curve analysis also showed improved performance compared with WBC count alone. CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of MDW with WBC count is shown in this prospective cohort study to improve detection of sepsis compared with WBC count alone at the time of admission in the ED.

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

4.7
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