Dataset Information

Sepsis Diagnostics: Intensive Care Scoring Systems Superior to MicroRNA Biomarker Testing.

ABSTRACT: Sepsis represents a serious medical problem accounting for numerous deaths of critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs). An early, sensitive, and specific diagnosis is considered a key element for improving the outcome of sepsis patients. In addition to classical laboratory markers, ICU scoring systems and serum miRNAs are discussed as potential sepsis biomarkers. In the present prospective observational study, the suitability of miRNAs in sepsis diagnosis was tested based on proper validated and normalized data (i.e., absolute quantification by means of Droplet Digital PCR (ddPCR)) in direct comparison to classical sepsis markers and ICU scores within the same patient cohort. Therefore, blood samples of septic intensive care patients (n = 12) taken at day of admission at ICU were compared to non-septic intensive care patients (n = 12) and a healthy control group (n = 12). Our analysis indicates that all tested biomarkers have only a moderate informative power and do not allow an unequivocal differentiation between septic and non-septic ICU patients. In conclusion, there is no standalone laboratory parameter that enables a reliable diagnosis of sepsis. miRNAs are not superior to classical parameters in this respect. It seems recommendable to measure multiple parameters and scores and to interpret them with regard to the clinical presentation.

SUBMITTER: Link F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7555112 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sepsis Diagnostics: Intensive Care Scoring Systems Superior to MicroRNA Biomarker Testing.

Link Fabian F Krohn Knut K Burgdorff Anna-Maria AM Christel Annett A Schumann Julia J

Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) 20200916 9

Sepsis represents a serious medical problem accounting for numerous deaths of critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs). An early, sensitive, and specific diagnosis is considered a key element for improving the outcome of sepsis patients. In addition to classical laboratory markers, ICU scoring systems and serum miRNAs are discussed as potential sepsis biomarkers. In the present prospective observational study, the suitability of miRNAs in sepsis diagnosis was tested based on proper ...[more]

PMID: 32948040

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to assess the predictive power of three different Sepsis Scoring Systems (SSSs), namely maternity Systematic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (mSIRS), quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) and Modified Early Warning System (MEWS) in identifying sepsis by comparing them with positive culture. This study also sought to evaluate compliance with using the Sepsis Six Care Bundle (SSCB) operated in an individual health board.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted in 3 maternity hospitals of a single Scottish health board that admitted 2690 pregnancies in a 12 weeks period in 2016. Data for study was obtained from medical notes, handheld and electronic health records for women who were prescribed antibiotics with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of sepsis. Data on clinical parameters was used to classify women according to mSIRS, qSOFA and MEWS as having sepsis or not and this was compared to results of positive culture to obtain sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and area under Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) along with their 95% confidence intervals. Data was also obtained on SSCB compliance.ResultsA total of 89 women were diagnosed with sepsis, of which 14 had missing data, leaving 75 for final analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and AUROC of mSIRS and MEWS were almost similar with AUROC of both being around 50%. Only 33 (37.1%) had identifiable sepsis six sticker displayed on medical notes and only 2 (2.2%) had all elements of SSCB delivered within the recommended one-hour post-diagnosis period. Blood culture and full blood count with other lab tests had been performed for most women (97%) followed by intravenous antibiotics and fluids (93.9%).ConclusionsmSIRS and MEWS were quite similar in detecting sepsis when compared to positive culture, with their ability to detect sepsis being close to chance. This underlines the need for creating a valid SSS with high sensitivity and specificity for clinical use in obstetric settings. Clinical use of SSCB was limited despite it being a health board policy, although there is considerable possibility of improvement following detailed audits and removal of barriers for implementing SSCB.

Project description:BackgroundMultiple scoring systems have been developed for both the intensive care unit (ICU) and the emergency department (ED) to risk stratify patients and predict mortality. However, it remains unclear whether the additional data needed to compute ICU scores improves mortality prediction for critically ill patients compared to the simpler ED scores.MethodsWe studied a prospective observational cohort of 227 critically ill patients admitted to the ICU directly from the ED at an academic, tertiary care medical center. We compared Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, APACHE III, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II, Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS), Prince of Wales Emergency Department Score (PEDS), and a pre-hospital critical illness prediction score developed by Seymour et al. (JAMA 2010, 304(7):747-754). The primary endpoint was 60-day mortality. We compared the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the different scores and their calibration using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test and visual assessment.ResultsThe ICU scores outperformed the ED scores with higher area under the curve (AUC) values (p?=?0.01). There were no differences in discrimination among the ED-based scoring systems (AUC 0.698 to 0.742; p?=?0.45) or among the ICU-based scoring systems (AUC 0.779 to 0.799; p?=?0.60). With the exception of the Seymour score, the ED-based scoring systems did not discriminate as well as the best-performing ICU-based scoring system, APACHE III (p?=?0.005 to 0.01 for comparison of ED scores to APACHE III). The Seymour score had a superior AUC to other ED scores and, despite a lower AUC than all the ICU scores, was not significantly different than APACHE III (p?=?0.09). When data from the first 24 h in the ICU was used to calculate the ED scores, the AUC for the ED scores improved numerically, but this improvement was not statistically significant. All scores had acceptable calibration.ConclusionsIn contrast to prior studies of patients based in the emergency department, ICU scores outperformed ED scores in critically ill patients admitted from the emergency department. This difference in performance seemed to be primarily due to the complexity of the scores rather than the time window from which the data was derived.

Project description:BackgroundDespite wide use of severity scoring systems for case-mix determination and benchmarking in the intensive care unit (ICU), the possibility of scoring bias across ethnicities has not been examined. Guidelines on the use of illness severity scores to inform triage decisions for allocation of scarce resources, such as mechanical ventilation, during the current COVID-19 pandemic warrant examination for possible bias in these models. We investigated the performance of the severity scoring systems Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IVa (APACHE IVa), Oxford Acute Severity of Illness Score (OASIS), and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) across four ethnicities in two large ICU databases to identify possible ethnicity-based bias.MethodsData from the electronic ICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD) and the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III (MIMIC-III) database, built from patient episodes in the USA from 2014-15 and 2001-12, respectively, were analysed for score performance in Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White people after appropriate exclusions. Hospital mortality was the outcome of interest. Discrimination and calibration were determined for all three scoring systems in all four groups, using area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve for different ethnicities to assess discrimination, and standardised mortality ratio (SMR) or proxy measures to assess calibration.FindingsWe analysed 166 751 participants (122 919 eICU-CRD and 43 832 MIMIC-III). Although measurements of discrimination were significantly different among the groups (AUROC ranging from 0·86 to 0·89 [p=0·016] with APACHE IVa and from 0·75 to 0·77 [p=0·85] with OASIS), they did not display any discernible systematic patterns of bias. However, measurements of calibration indicated persistent, and in some cases statistically significant, patterns of difference between Hispanic people (SMR 0·73 with APACHE IVa and 0·64 with OASIS) and Black people (0·67 and 0·68) versus Asian people (0·77 and 0·95) and White people (0·76 and 0·81). Although calibrations were imperfect for all groups, the scores consistently showed a pattern of overpredicting mortality for Black people and Hispanic people. Similar results were seen using SOFA scores across the two databases.InterpretationThe systematic differences in calibration across ethnicities suggest that illness severity scores reflect statistical bias in their predictions of mortality.FundingThere was no specific funding for this study.

Dataset Information

Sepsis Diagnostics: Intensive Care Scoring Systems Superior to MicroRNA Biomarker Testing.

Publications

Sepsis Diagnostics: Intensive Care Scoring Systems Superior to MicroRNA Biomarker Testing.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets