4.6 Article

Neutrophil and monocyte CD64 indexes, lipopolysaccharide-binding protein, procalcitonin and C-reactive protein in sepsis of critically ill neonates and children

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 35, 期 11, 页码 1950-1958

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-009-1637-7

关键词

Lipopolysaccharide-binding protein; Neutrophil CD64 index; Monocyte CD64 index; Procalcitonin; Sepsis; Systemic inflammatory response syndrome

资金

  1. Slovenian Research Agency [J3-6245]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of neutrophil and monocyte CD64 indexes (CD64in and CD64im) for sepsis in critically ill neonates and children with that of lipopolysaccharide-binding protein (LBP), procalcitonin (PCT) and C-reactive protein (CRP). Prospective, observational study in a level III multidisciplinary neonatal and pediatric intensive care unit (ICU). Forty-six neonates and 36 children with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and suspected infection, classified into two groups: those with bacterial sepsis (microbiologically proven or clinical sepsis) and those without bacterial sepsis (infection not supported by subsequent clinical course, laboratory data and microbiological tests). Flow cytometric CD64in and CD64im, serum LBP, PCT and CRP measurement on 2 consecutive days from admission to the ICU. There were 17 cases of bacterial sepsis in neonates and 24 cases of bacterial sepsis in children. All neonates and the majority of children were mechanically ventilated, and more than two-thirds of neonates with sepsis and one-third of children with sepsis needed inotropic/vasopressor drugs. The highest diagnostic accuracy for sepsis on the 1st day of suspected sepsis was achieved by LBP in neonates (0.86) and by CD64in in children (0.88) and 24 h later by CD64in in neonates (0.96) and children (0.98). Neutrophil CD64 index (CD64in) is the best individual marker for bacterial sepsis in children, while in neonates the highest diagnostic accuracy at the time of suspected sepsis was achieved by LBP and 24 h later by CD64in.

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