GFAP point-of-care measurement for prehospital diagnosis of intracranial hemorrhage in acute coma.

BACKGROUND: Prehospital triage and treatment of patients with acute coma is challenging for rescue services, as the underlying pathological conditions are highly heterogenous. Recently, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) has been identified as a biomarker of intracranial hemorrhage. The aim of this prospective study was to test whether prehospital GFAP measurements on a point-of-care device have the potential to rapidly differentiate intracranial hemorrhage from other causes of acute coma. METHODS: This study was conducted at the RKH Klinikum Ludwigsburg, a tertiary care hospital in the northern vicinity of Stuttgart, Germany. Patients who were admitted to the emergency department with the prehospital diagnosis of acute coma (Glasgow Coma Scale scores between 3 and 8) were enrolled prospectively. Blood samples were collected in the prehospital phase. Plasma GFAP measurements were performed on the i-STAT Alinity® (Abbott) device (duration of analysis 15 min) shortly after hospital admission. RESULTS: 143 patients were enrolled (mean age 65 ± 20 years, 42.7% female). GFAP plasma concentrations were strongly elevated in patients with intracranial hemorrhage (n = 51) compared to all other coma etiologies (3352 pg/mL [IQR 613-10001] vs. 43 pg/mL [IQR 29-91.25], p < 0.001). When using an optimal cut-off value of 101 pg/mL, sensitivity for identifying intracranial hemorrhage was 94.1% (specificity 78.9%, positive predictive value 71.6%, negative predictive value 95.9%). In-hospital mortality risk was associated with prehospital GFAP values. CONCLUSION: Increased GFAP plasma concentrations in patients with acute coma identify intracranial hemorrhage with high diagnostic accuracy. Prehospital GFAP measurements on a point-of-care platform allow rapid stratification according to the underlying cause of coma by rescue services. This could have major impact on triage and management of these critically ill patients.

Prognostic value of the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index score in marginal zone lymphoma: an analysis of clinical presentation and outcome in 144 patients.

BACKGROUND: In marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), clinical and follow-up data on large cohorts of patients are difficult to obtain. The objective of this single-center, retrospective analysis of a large cohort of 144 patients with MZL was to elucidate the role of prognostic markers, treatments, and outcomes in this disease. METHODS: In total, 144 patients were identified who were diagnosed with MZL at the authors' institution between 2003 and 2010. Data on clinical parameters, treatments, response, and survival were analyzed. In addition, the validity of the International Prognostic Index (IPI) and Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) prognostic scores were tested in patients with MZL. RESULTS: Among 144 patients with MZL, 96 patients (67%) had extralymph node (extranodal) MZL, 32 patients (22%) had lymph node (nodal) MZL, and 16 patients (11%) had splenic MZL. The 5-year progression-free survival rate was 82% in the nodal MZL group, 88% in the extranodal MZL group, and 74% in the splenic MZL group and did not different between the 3 groups (P = .60). The 5-year overall survival rate was excellent in all 3 MZL groups (nodal MZL, 89%; extranodal MZL, 92%; splenic MZL, 82%; P = .46). In our cohort, the FLIPI score was a significant prognostic marker: The 5-year progression-free survival rate for patients who had FLIPI scores of 0 to 2 (low or intermediate risk) was excellent at 92%, whereas it was only 62% for patients who had FLIPI scores of 3 to 5 (poor risk; P = .003). Similarly, the 5-year overall survival rate for patients who had FLIPI scores of 0 to 2 was 95%, whereas it was only 62% for patients who had FLIPI scores of 3 to 5 (P = .0009). CONCLUSIONS: The FLIPI score had strong prognostic value in patients with MZL. Patients who have low-risk or intermediate-risk FLIPI scores have an excellent prognosis, whereas patients with poor-risk FLIPI scores are candidates for novel treatment approaches.