4.6 Article

Non-Invasive Serum Amyloid A (SAA) Measurement and Plasma Platelets for Accurate Prediction of Surgical Intervention in Severe Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC)

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090834

关键词

-

资金

  1. AGIKO-stipendium from The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development [920-03-438]
  2. Stichting Sint Annadal, Maastricht, the Netherlands

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the value of biomarkers to detect severe NEC. Summary Background Data: The time point of surgery in necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is critical. Therefore, there is a need for markers that detect severe NEC, because clinical signs of severe NEC often develop late. This study evaluated the value of biomarkers reflecting intestinal cell damage and inflammation to detect severe NEC. Methods: 29 neonates with NEC were included. Two definitions of moderate versus severe NEC were analyzed: medical NEC (n = 12) versus surgical or fatal NEC (n = 17); and Bell stage II NEC (n = 13) versus stage III NEC (n = 16). Urinary intestinal fatty acid binding protein (I-FABP), serum amyloid A (SAA), C3a and C5a, and fecal calprotectin were measured. C-reactive protein (CRP), white blood cell count (WBC) and platelet count data were measured in blood. Results: In both definitions of moderate versus severe NEC, urinary SAA levels were significantly higher in severe NEC. A cutoff value of 34.4 ng/ml was found in surgical NEC versus medical NEC (sensitivity, 83%; specificity, 83%; LR+, 4.88 (95% CI, 1.37-17.0); LR-, 0.20 (95% CI, 0.07-0.60)) at diagnosis of NEC and at one day prior to surgery in neonates who were operated later on. Combination of urinary SAA and platelet count increased the accuracy, with a sensitivity, 94%; specificity, 83%; LR+, 5.53 (95% CI, 1.57-20.0); and LR-, 0.07 (95% CI, 0.01-0.48). Conclusion: Urinary SAA is an accurate marker in differentiating severe NEC from moderate NEC; particularly if combined with serum platelet count.

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