4.7 Article

Diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers of sepsis in critical care

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 66, 期 -, 页码 II33-II40

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkq523

关键词

procalcitonin; intensive care; antibiotic stewardship

资金

  1. BSAC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sepsis is a leading cause of mortality in critically ill patients. Delay in diagnosis and initiation of antibiotics have been shown to increase mortality in this cohort. However, differentiating sepsis from non-infectious triggers of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) is difficult, especially in critically ill patients who may have SIRS for other reasons. It is this conundrum that predominantly drives broad-spectrum antimicrobial use and the associated evolution of antibiotic resistance in critical care environments. It is perhaps unsurprising, therefore, that the search for a highly accurate biomarker of sepsis has become one of the holy grails of medicine. Procalcitonin (PCT) has emerged as the most studied and promising sepsis biomarker. For diagnostic and prognostic purposes in critical care, PCT is an advance on C-reactive protein and other traditional markers of sepsis, but is not accurate enough for clinicians to dispense with clinical judgement. There is stronger evidence, however, that measurement of PCT has a role in reducing the antibiotic exposure of critical care patients. For units intending to incorporate PCT assays into routine clinical practice, the cost-effectiveness of this is likely to depend on the pre-implementation length of an average antibiotic course and the subsequent impact of implementation on emerging antibiotic resistance. In most of the trials to date, the average baseline duration of the antibiotic course was longer than is currently standard practice in many UK critical care units. Many other biomarkers are currently being investigated. To be highly useful in clinical practice, it may be necessary to combine these with other novel biomarkers and/or traditional markers of sepsis.

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