Sepsis represents an important global health burden due to its high mortality and morbidity. The rapid detection of sepsis is crucial in order to prevent adverse outcomes and reduce mortality. However, the diagnosis of sepsis is still challenging and many efforts have been made to identify reliable biomarkers. Unfortunately, many investigated biomarkers have several limitations that do not support their introduction in clinical practice, such as moderate diagnostic and prognostic accuracy, long turn-around time, and high-costs. Complete blood count represents instead a precious test that provides a wealth of information on individual health status. It can guide clinicians to early-identify patients at high risk of developing sepsis and to predict adverse outcomes. It has several advantages, being cheap, easy-to-perform, and available in all wards, from the emergency department to the intensive care unit. Noteworthy, it represents a first-level test and an alteration of its parameters must always be considered within the clinical context, and the eventual suspect of sepsis must be confirmed by more specific investigations. In this review, we describe the usefulness of basic and new complete blood count parameters as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers of sepsis.
Objectives In this study, we developed and evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the Sepsis Index for early sepsis screening in the Emergency Department (ED). Methods Sepsis Index is based on the combination of monocyte distribution width (MDW) and mean monocyte volume (MMV). Sepsis Index≥1 was selected to define sepsis. We tested its diagnostic accuracy in an ED population stratified in four groups: controls, Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), infection, and sepsis, according to Sepsis-2 criteria. Results Patients with sepsis displayed higher median Sepsis Index value than patients without sepsis. At the receiver operating characterictis (ROC) curve analysis for the prediction of sepsis, the area under the curve (AUC) of MDW and Sepsis Index were similar: 0.966 (95%CI 0.947–0.984), and 0.964 (95%CI 0.942–0.985), respectively. Sepsis Index showed increased specificity than MDW (94.7 vs. 90.6%), without any decrease in sensitivity (92.0%). Additionally, LR+ increased from 9.8 (MDW) to 17.4 (Sepsis Index), without any substantial change in LR− (respectively 0.09 vs. 0.08). Finally, PPV increased from 0.286 (MDW) to 0.420 (Sepsis Index). Conclusions Sepsis Index improves the diagnostic accuracy of MDW alone for sepsis screening.
(1) Background: The early detection of sepsis is still challenging, and there is an urgent need for biomarkers that could identify patients at a high risk of developing it. We recently developed an index, namely the Sepsis Index (SI), based on the combination of two CBC parameters: monocyte distribution width (MDW) and mean monocyte volume (MMV). In this study, we sought to independently validate the performance of SI as a tool for the early detection of patients at a high risk of sepsis in the Emergency Department (ED). (2) Methods: We enrolled all consecutive patients attending the ED with a request of the CBC. MDW and MMV were measured on samples collected in K3-EDTA tubes on the UniCel DxH 900 haematology analyser. SI was calculated based on the MDW and MMV. (3) Results: We enrolled a total of 703 patients stratified into four subgroups according to the Sepsis-2 criteria: control (498), infection (105), SIRS (52) and sepsis (48). The sepsis subgroup displayed the highest MDW (median 27.5, IQR 24.6–32.9) and SI (median 1.15, IQR 1.05–1.29) values. The ROC curve analysis for the prediction of sepsis showed a good and comparable diagnostic accuracy of the MDW and SI. However, the SI displayed an increased specificity, positive predictive value and positive likelihood ratio in comparison to MDW alone. (4) Conclusions: SI improves the diagnostic accuracy of MDW for sepsis screening.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.