Early detection of patient deterioration in patients with infection or sepsis
Quinten, Vincent
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date: 2019
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Quinten, V. (2019). Early detection of patient deterioration in patients with infection or sepsis. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Chapter 3
PUBLISHED AS Quinten VM, Van Meurs M, Ter Maaten JC, Ligtenberg JJM. Biomarkers or Clinical Observations to Identify (Outcome of) Emergency Department Patients
Biomarkers or clinical observations
to identify (outcome of) emergency
department patients with infection?
To the Editor: In their recent article in Shock, Day et al assess the value of the addition of a set
of inflammatory and endothelial biomarkers to clinical data when predicting the infectious etiologies of abnormal vital signs in Emergency Department (ED) patients1. The authors found
that the combination of interleukin-6 and soluble E-selectin, the initial temperature, and a history of fever improved identifying infection. We agree with their conclusion that in future studies clinical data should be integrated into prediction models of infection. Recently, we reviewed the literature on biomarkers in sepsis and wondered whether adding the relatively new biomarkers for sepsis and multi-organ failure (MOF), tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-2, angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2), neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL), kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1), and insulin-like growth factor-binding protein-7 (IGFBP-7) to routine laboratory determinations could help to identify severity of infection, complications, need for ICU admission, and outcome. In patients admitted to our university medical center-based ED with a clinical suspection of infection, venous blood samples for biomarkers were collected at admittance to the ED, in combination with blood for routine laboratory analysis. A total of 94 patients were included: 40 patients with sepsis, 51 with severe sepsis, and 3 patients with septic shock.
Lactate and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) were the routine markers that distinguished best between sepsis and severe sepsis (P<0.001 and P=0002): lactate accounted for a large (r=-0.51) effect size and BUN for a medium (r=-0.32) effect size. Creatinine was a predictor for MOF. C-reactive protein was a predictor for both respiratory failure and admittance to the ICU. The biomarkers KIM-1 and IGFBP-7 significantly distinguished between sepsis and severe sepsis (P=0.001 and P=0.015): KIM-1 showed a medium (r=-0.35) effect size and IGFBP-7 a small-to-medium (r=-0.25) effect size. IGFBP-7 was the only biomarker that predicted for the primary endpoint, 6-month mortality. Plasma NGAL was the best biomarker to predict MOF. The only biomarker to predict acute kidney injury was IGFBP-7. Ang-2 was both a predictor for respiratory failure and admittance to the ICU. The review article by Pierrakos and Vincent lists 178 biomarkers, proposed for (diagnosis of) sepsis: almost none of them showed a sensitivity and specificity over 90%2. In conclusion, combinations of biomarkers
might contribute and —in the future— may be part of (machine learning) models helping us in taking the right patient treatment and placement decisions in patients with infections in the ED. It is paramount that these biomarkers will be available fast during patients’ stay in the ED. Until that time clinical judgment and vital signs are most important in diagnosing (severity of) infection3. In the last 10 years, the early recognition of the septic patient, reevaluating,
and adjusting treatment in a timely manner using treatment bundles has improved outcome substantially4; now it is time for fine-tuning our diagnostic modalities during acute ED
REFERENCES
1 Day DE, Oedorf K, Kogan S, et al. The Utility of Inflammatory and Endothelial Markers to Identify Infection in Emergency Department Patients. Shock 2015; 44: 215–20.
2 Pierrakos C, Vincent J-L. Sepsis biomarkers: a review. Crit Care 2010; 14: R15.
3 van der Vegt AE, Holman M, ter Maaten JC. The value of the clinical impression in recognizing and treating sepsis patients in the emergency department. Eur J Emerg Med 2012; 19: 373–8.
4 Ligtenberg JJ, ter Maaten JC, Zijlstra JG. Back to basics in sepsis treatment: Critically ill patients need intensive care. Crit. Care. 2014; 18: 405.
TRENDS AND VARIABILITY IN
VITAL SIGNS AS PREDICTORS
OF PATIENT DETERIORATION
Chapter 4 Sepsis: beyond mortality. 31
Chapter 5 Trends in vital signs and routine biomarkers in patients with sepsis during resuscitation in the emergency department: a prospective
observational pilot study. 35
Chapter 6 Repeated vital sign measurements in the emergency department predict patient deterioration within 72 hours: a prospective
observational study. 49
Chapter 7 Heart rate variability as early warning for patient deterioration in emergency department patients with sepsis: the study protocol of the
