Background The soluble cluster of differentiation 14 (or presepsin) is a free fragment of glycoprotein expressed on monocytes and macrophages. Although many studies have been conducted recently, the diagnostic performance of presepsin for sepsis remains debated. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature to assess the accuracy of presepsin for the diagnosis of sepsis in adult patients and compared the performance between presepsin, C-reactive protein (CRP), and procalcitonin (PCT).MethodsA comprehensive systemic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar for studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of presepsin for sepsis until January 2017. The hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic method was used to pool individual sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).ResultsEighteen studies, comprising 3470 patients, met our inclusion criteria. The pooled diagnosis sensitivity and specificity of presepsin for sepsis were 0.84 (95% CI 0.80–0.87) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.67–0.82), respectively. Furthermore, the pooled DOR, PLR, NLR, and AUC were 16 (95% CI 10–25), 3.4 (95% CI 2.5–4.6), 0.22 (95% CI 0.17–0.27), and 0.88 (95% CI 0.85–0.90), respectively. Significant heterogeneity was found in both sensitivities (Cochrane Q = 137.43, p < 0.001, I 2 = 87.63%) and specificities (Cochrane Q = 180.76, p < 0.001, I 2 = 90.60%). Additionally, we found no significant difference between presepsin and PCT (AUC 0.87 vs. 0.86) or CRP (AUC 0.85 vs. 0.85). However, for studies conducted in ICU, the pooled sensitivity of presepsin was found to be higher than PCT (0.88, 95% CI 0.82–0.92 vs. 0.75, 95% CI 0.68–0.81), while the pooled specificity of presepsin was lower than PCT (0.58, 95% CI 0.42–0.73 vs. 0.75, 95% CI 0.65–0.83).ConclusionBased on the results of our meta-analysis, presepsin is a promising marker for diagnosis of sepsis as PCT or CRP, but its results should be interpreted more carefully and cautiously since too few studies were included and those studies had high heterogeneity between them. In addition, continuing re-evaluation during the course of sepsis is advisable.

Sepsis was recently redefined as a life-threatening disease involving organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. Biomarkers play an important role in early detection, diagnosis, and prognostication. We reviewed six promising biomarkers for detecting sepsis and systemic infection, including C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), interleukin-6 (IL-6), CD64, presepsin, and sTREM-1. Among the recent studies, we found the following risks of bias: only a few studies adopted the random or consecutive sampling strategy; extensive case-control analysis, which worsened the over-estimated performance; most of the studies used post hoc cutoff values; and heterogeneity with respect to the inclusion criteria, small sample sizes, and different quantitative synthesis methods applied in meta-analyses. We recommend that CD64 and presepsin should be considered as the most promising biomarkers for diagnosing sepsis. Future studies should enroll a larger sample size with a cohort rather than a case-control study design. A random or consecutive study design with a pre-specified laboratory threshold, consistent sampling timing, and an updated definition of sepsis will also increase the reliability of the studies. Further investigations of appropriate specimens, testing assays, and cutoff levels for specific biomarkers are also warranted.

Objective To evaluate the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for the treatment of acute respiratory failure (ARF) in emergency departments (EDs). Method We comprehensively searched 3 databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library) for articles published from database inception to 12 July 2019. This study included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were conducted in EDs and compared HFNC therapy with COT or NIV. The primary outcome was the intubation rate. The secondary outcomes were the mortality rate, intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate, ED discharge rate, need for escalation, length of ED stay, length of hospital stay, and patient dyspnea and comfort scores. Result Five RCTs (n = 775) were included. There was a decreasing trend regarding the application of HFNC therapy and the intubation rate, but the difference was not statistically significant (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.26–1.09; p=0.08; I2 = 0%). We found that compared with patients who underwent COT, those who underwent HFNC therapy had a reduced need for escalation (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22–0.78; p=0.006; I2 = 0%), reduced dyspnea scores (MD −0.82, 95% CI −1.45 to −0.18), and improved comfort (SMD −0.76 SD, 95% CI −1.01 to −0.51). Compared with the COT group, the HFNC therapy group had a similar mortality rate (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.79–1.99; p=0.34; I2 = 0%), ICU admission rate (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.58–2.12; p=0.76; I2 = 0%), ED discharge rate (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.63–1.72; p=0.87; I2 = 0%), length of ED stay (MD 1.66, 95% CI −0.95 to 4.27), and hospital stay (MD 0.9, 95% CI −2.06 to 3.87). Conclusion Administering HFNC therapy in ARF patients in EDs might decrease the intubation rate compared with COT. In addition, it can decrease the need for escalation, decrease the patient's dyspnea level, and increase the patient's comfort level compared with COT.

No abstract