4.7 Article

Combination Biomarkers to Diagnose Sepsis in the Critically Ill Patient

出版社

AMER THORACIC SOC
DOI: 10.1164/rccm.201201-0037OC

关键词

sepsis; diagnostic biomarkers; procalcitonin; CD64; sTREM-1

资金

  1. French Ministry of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rationale: Although the outcome of sepsis benefits from the prompt administration of appropriate antibiotics on correct diagnosis, the assessment of infection in critically ill patients is often a challenge for clinicians. In this setting, simple biomarkers, especially when used in combination, could prove useful. Objectives: To determine the usefulness of combination biomarkers to diagnose sepsis. Methods: Three hundred consecutive patients were enrolled to construct a biologic score that was next validated in an independent prospective cohort of 79 critically ill patients from another center. Measurement and Main Results: Plasma concentrations of soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells-1 (sTREM-1) and procalcitonin (PCT) were assayed, and the expression of the high-affinity immunoglobulin-Fc fragment receptor I (Fc gamma RI) CD64 on neutrophils (polymorphonuclear [PMN] CD64 index) in flow cytometry was measured. A bioscore combining these biomarkers was constructed. Serum concentrations of PCT and sTREM-1 and the PMN CD64 index were higher in patients with sepsis compared with all others (P < 0.001 for the three markers). These biomarkers were all independent predictors of infection, the best receiver-operating characteristic curve being obtained for the PMN CD64 index. The performance of the bioscore, better than that of each individual biomarker, was externally confirmed in the validation cohort. Conclusions: This prospective study, including inceptive and validation cohorts of unselected intensive care unit patients, demonstrates the high performance of a bioscore combining the PMN CD64 index together with PCT and sTREM-1 serum levels in diagnosing sepsis in the critically ill patient.

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