Accuracy of pancreatic stone protein for the diagnosis of infection in hospitalized adults: a systematic review and individual patient level meta-analysis

 

Accuracy of pancreatic stone protein for the diagnosis of infection in hospitalized adults: a systematic review and individual patient level meta-analysis

 

by Josef Prazak, Irina Irincheeva, Martin J. Llewelyn, Daiana Stolz, Luis García de Guadiana Romualdo, Rolf Graf, Theresia Reding, Holger J. Klein, Philippe Eggimann and Yok-Ai Que 

 

Critical Care volume 25, Article number: 182 (2021)

 

Background

Accurate biomarkers to diagnose infection are lacking. Studies reported good performance of pancreatic stone protein (PSP) to detect infection. The objective of the study was to determine the performance of PSP in diagnosing infection across hospitalized patients and calculate a threshold value for that purpose.

Methods

A systematic search across Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and MEDLINE databases (1966–March 2019) for studies on PSP published in English using ‘pancreatic stone protein’, ‘PSP’, ‘regenerative protein’, ‘lithostatin’ combined with ‘infection’ and ‘sepsis’ found 44 records. The search was restricted to the five trials that evaluated PSP for the initial detection of infection in hospitalized adults. Individual patient data were obtained from the investigators of all eligible trials. Data quality and validity was assessed according to PRISMA guidelines. We choose a fixed-effect model to calculate the PSP cut-off value that best discriminates infected from non-infected patients.

Results

Infection was confirmed in 371 of 631 patients. The median (IQR) PSP value of infected versus uninfected patients was 81.5 (30.0–237.5) versus 19.2 (12.6–33.57) ng/ml, compared to 150 (82.70–229.55) versus 58.25 (15.85–120) mg/l for C-reactive protein (CRP) and 0.9 (0.29–4.4) versus 0.15 (0.08–0.5) ng/ml for procalcitonin (PCT). Using a PSP cut-off of 44.18 ng/ml, the ROC AUC to detect infection was 0.81 (0.78–0.85) with a sensitivity of 0.66 (0.61–0.71), specificity of 0.83 (0.78–0.88), PPV of 0.85 (0.81–0.89) and NPV of 0.63 (0.58–0.68). When a model combining PSP and CRP was used, the ROC AUC improved to 0.90 (0.87–0.92) with higher sensitivity 0.81 (0.77–0.85) and specificity 0.84 (0.79–0.90) for discriminating infection from non-infection. Adding PCT did not improve the performance further.

Conclusions

PSP is a promising biomarker to diagnose infections in hospitalized patients. Using a cut-off value of 44.18 ng/ml, PSP performs better than CRP or PCT across the considered studies. The combination of PSP with CRP further enhances its accuracy.

Monocyte Distribution Width: A Novel Indicator of Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 in High-Risk Emergency Department Patients*

Monocyte Distribution Width: A Novel Indicator of Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 in High-Risk Emergency Department Patients*

by Crouser, Elliott D.; Parrillo, Joseph E.; Seymour, Christopher W.; Angus, Derek C.; Bicking, Keri; Esguerra, Vincent G.; Peck-Palmer, Octavia M.; Magari, Robert T.; Julian, Mark W.; Kleven, Jennifer M.; Raj, Paarth J.; Procopio, Gabrielle; Careaga, Diana; Tejidor, Liliana

Critical Care Medicine: August 2019 - Volume 47 - Issue 8 - p 1018-1025

Objectives: Most septic patients are initially encountered in the emergency department where sepsis recognition is often delayed, in part due to the lack of effective biomarkers. This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of peripheral blood monocyte distribution width alone and in combination with WBC count for early sepsis detection in the emergency department. Design: An Institutional Review Board approved, blinded, observational, prospective cohort study conducted between April 2017 and January 2018.

Setting: Subjects were enrolled from emergency departments at three U.S. academic centers. Patients: Adult patients, 18–89 years, with complete blood count performed upon presentation to the emergency department, and who remained hospitalized for at least 12 hours. A total of 2,212 patients were screened, of whom 2,158 subjects were enrolled and categorized per Sepsis-2 criteria, such as controls (n = 1,088), systemic inflammatory response syndrome (n = 441), infection (n = 244), and sepsis (n = 385), and Sepsis-3 criteria, such as control (n = 1,529), infection (n = 386), and sepsis (n = 243). Interventions: The primary outcome determined whether an monocyte distribution width of greater than 20.0 U, alone or in combination with WBC, improves early sepsis detection by Sepsis-2 criteria. Secondary endpoints determined monocyte distribution width performance for Sepsis-3 detection.

Measurements and Main Results: Monocyte distribution width greater than 20.0 U distinguished sepsis from all other conditions based on either Sepsis-2 criteria (area under the curve, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.76–0.82) or Sepsis-3 criteria (area under the curve, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.69–0.76). The negative predictive values for monocyte distribution width less than or equal to 20 U for Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 were 93% and 94%, respectively. Monocyte distribution width greater than 20.0 U combined with an abnormal WBC further improved Sepsis-2 detection (area under the curve, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.83–0.88) and as reflected by likelihood ratio and added value analyses. Normal WBC and monocyte distribution width inferred a six-fold lower sepsis probability.

Conclusions: An monocyte distribution width value of greater than 20.0 U is effective for sepsis detection, based on either Sepsis-2 criteria or Sepsis-3 criteria, during the initial emergency department encounter. In tandem with WBC, monocyte distribution width is further predicted to enhance medical decision making during early sepsis management in the emergency department.

Variation in diagnostic testing in ICUs

Variation in diagnostic testing in ICUs: A comparison of teaching and nonteaching hospitals in a regional system. Critical care medicine, Jan 2014, Vol. 42(1), p.9-16.

Spence, J., et al.

http://journals.lww.com/ccmjournal/Abstract/2014/01000/Variation_in_Diagnostic_Testing_in_ICUs__A.2.aspx

To explore variation in the use of diagnostic testing in ICUs, with emphasis on differences between teaching and nonteaching ICUs.