Serial and panel analyses of biomarkers do not improve the prediction of bacteremia compared to one procalcitonin measurement.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the value of a single biomarker, biomarker panels, biomarkers combined with clinical signs of sepsis, and serial determinations of biomarkers in the prediction of bacteremia in patients with sepsis. METHODS: Adult patients visiting the emergency department because of a suspected infection with at least two of the following symptoms: temperature >38.3°C or <36°C, heart rate >90/min, respiratory rate >20/min, chills, altered mental status, systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg, MAP <65 mmHg, and hyperglycemia in the absence of diabetes mellitus were included. Procalcitonin (PCT), interleukin-6 (IL-6), lipopolysaccharide-binding protein (LBP), C-reactive protein (CRP) were measured, and two blood cultures were taken. The analyses included: (1) determination of the biomarker with the highest predictive value for bacteremia and to examine the predictive value of this biomarker in combination with other biomarkers; (2) analysis of the best biomarker data in combination with clinical signs of sepsis; and (3) analysis of serial determinations of the best biomarker. RESULTS: Of 342 included patients, PCT had the best predictive value for bacteremia with an area under the curve of 0.80, sensitivity 89%, specificity 58%. The predictive value of a combination of PCT plus a panel of other biomarkers, clinical signs, or analysis of serial PCT levels did not lead to a significant improvement of the predictive value of PCT alone. CONCLUSIONS: The ability of PCT to predict bacteremia in patients with sepsis does not further improve when combined with IL-6, LBP, CRP, clinical signs, or serial measurements. Naturally, this does not exclude that a panel of other biomarkers may lead to different results.

Dynamic indices do not predict volume responsiveness in routine clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Dynamic indices, including pulse pressure, systolic pressure, and stroke volume variation (PPV, SPV, and SVV), are accurate predictors of fluid responsiveness under strict conditions, for example, controlled mechanical ventilation using conventional tidal volumes (TVs) in the absence of cardiac arrhythmias. However, in routine clinical practice, these prerequisites are not always met. We evaluated the effect of regularly used ventilator settings, different calculation methods, and the presence of cardiac arrhythmias on the ability of dynamic indices to predict fluid responsiveness in sedated, mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 47 fluid challenges in 29 consecutive cardiac surgery patients. Patients were divided into different groups based on TV. Dynamic indices were calculated in various ways: calculation over 30 s, breath-by-breath (with and without excluding arrhythmias), and with correction for TV. RESULTS: The predictive value was optimal in the group ventilated with TVs >7 ml kg(-1) with correction for TV, calculated breath-by-breath, and with exclusion of arrhythmias [area under the curve (AUC)=0.95, 0.93, and 0.90 for PPV, SPV, and SVV, respectively]. Including patients ventilated with lower TVs decreased the predictive value of all dynamic indices, while calculating dynamic indices over 30 s and not excluding cardiac arrhythmias further reduced the AUC to 0.51, 0.63, and 0.51 for PPV, SPV, and SVV, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PPV, SPV, and SVV are the only reliable predictors of fluid responsiveness under strict conditions. In routine clinical practice, factors including low TV, cardiac arrhythmias, and the calculation method can substantially reduce their predictive value.

Non-invasive measurement of pulse pressure variation and systolic pressure variation using a finger cuff corresponds with intra-arterial measurement.

BACKGROUND: Pulse pressure variation (PPV) and systolic pressure variation (SPV) are reliable predictors of fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing controlled mechanical ventilation. Currently, PPV and SPV are measured invasively and it is unknown if an arterial pressure (AP) signal obtained with a finger cuff can be used as an alternative. The aim of this study was to validate PPV and SPV measured using a finger cuff. METHODS: Patients receiving mechanical ventilation under sedation after cardiac artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery were included after arrival on the intensive care unit. AP was measured invasively in the radial artery and non-invasively using the finger cuff of the Nexfin™ monitor. I.V. fluid challenges were administered according to clinical need. The mean value of PPV and SVV was calculated before and after administration of a fluid challenge. Agreement of the calculated PPV and SPV from both methods was assessed using the Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were included and 28 volume challenges were analysed. Correlation between the two methods for PPV and SPV [mean (sd)=6.9 (4.3)% and 5.3 (2.6)%, respectively] was r=0.96 (P<0.0001) and r=0.95 (P<0.0001), respectively. The mean bias was -0.95% for PPV and -0.22% for SPV. Limits of agreement were -4.3% and 2.4% for PPV and -2.2% and 1.7% for SPV. The correlation between changes in PPV and SPV as a result of volume expansion measured by the two different methods was r=0.88 (P<0.0001) and r=0.87 (P<0.0001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients receiving controlled mechanical ventilation after CABG, PPV and SPV can be measured reliably non-invasively using the inflatable finger cuff of the Nexfin™ monitor.