Plasma calprotectin as an indicator of need of transfer to intensive care in patients with suspected sepsis at the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Deciding whether to transfer patients with sepsis from the emergency department (ED) to intensive care units (ICUs) is challenging. We hypothesised that the new biomarker plasma calprotectin (p-calprotectin) could be used to aid the selection of patients for intensive care transfer, since it has been shown to be a promising tool for the determination of sepsis severity in critical care. METHODS: This prospective study was performed on consecutive sepsis alert patients in the ED of Karolinska University Hospital Huddinge. The sepsis alert mandates clinical assessment and decisions regarding treatment, disposition, and level of care by physicians from the ED, the Department of Infectious Diseases, and the ICU. Blood sample analysis for C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, neutrophils, and lymphocytes was routinely performed. P-calprotectin was analysed from frozen plasma samples, using a specific turbidimetric assay. RESULTS: Three-hundred fifty-one patients who triggered the sepsis alert were available for the study. Among 319 patients who were considered to have an infection, 66 patients (26%) were immediately transferred to the ICU or high-dependency unit (HDU), and 253 patients (74%) were transferred to ordinary wards. Median p-calprotectin was 2.2 mg/L (IQR 1.2-3.9 mg/L) for all patients with infection, it was 3.3 (IQR 1.6-5.2) for those transferred to ICU/HDU and 2.1 (IQR 1.1-3.5) for those transferred to ward units (p = 0.0001). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for transfer to the ICU/HDU showed superiority for p-calprotectin compared with procalcitonin and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, regarding both all sepsis alert cases and the patients with infection (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). The best p-calprotectin cut-off, 4.0 mg/L, showed a sensitivity of 42.5% and specificity of 83% for transfer to the ICU/HDU among patients with infection. CONCLUSIONS: In sepsis alert patients, p-calprotectin was significantly elevated in patients who were subject to immediate ICU/HDU transfer after assessment by a multidisciplinary team. P-calprotectin was superior to traditional biomarkers in predicting the need for transfer to the ICU/HDU.

Discriminatory plasma biomarkers predict specific clinical phenotypes of necrotizing soft-tissue infections.

BACKGROUNDNecrotizing soft-tissue infections (NSTIs) are rapidly progressing infections frequently complicated by septic shock and associated with high mortality. Early diagnosis is critical for patient outcome, but challenging due to vague initial symptoms. Here, we identified predictive biomarkers for NSTI clinical phenotypes and outcomes using a prospective multicenter NSTI patient cohort.METHODSLuminex multiplex assays were used to assess 36 soluble factors in plasma from NSTI patients with positive microbiological cultures (n = 251 and n = 60 in the discovery and validation cohorts, respectively). Control groups for comparative analyses included surgical controls (n = 20), non-NSTI controls (i.e., suspected NSTI with no necrosis detected upon exploratory surgery, n = 20), and sepsis patients (n = 24).RESULTSThrombomodulin was identified as a unique biomarker for detection of NSTI (AUC, 0.95). A distinct profile discriminating mono- (type II) versus polymicrobial (type I) NSTI types was identified based on differential expression of IL-2, IL-10, IL-22, CXCL10, Fas-ligand, and MMP9 (AUC >0.7). While each NSTI type displayed a distinct array of biomarkers predicting septic shock, granulocyte CSF (G-CSF), S100A8, and IL-6 were shared by both types (AUC >0.78). Finally, differential connectivity analysis revealed distinctive networks associated with specific clinical phenotypes.CONCLUSIONSThis study identifies predictive biomarkers for NSTI clinical phenotypes of potential value for diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic approaches in NSTIs.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT01790698.FUNDINGCenter for Innovative Medicine (CIMED); Region Stockholm; Swedish Research Council; European Union; Vinnova; Innovation Fund Denmark; Research Council of Norway; Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development; DLR Federal Ministry of Education and Research; and Swedish Children's Cancer Foundation.