Cargando…
Comparison of the accuracy of neutrophil CD64, procalcitonin, and C-reactive protein for sepsis identification: a systematic review and meta-analysis
BACKGROUND: Neutrophil CD64 is widely described as an accurate biomarker for the diagnosis of infection in patients with septic syndrome. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of neutrophil CD64, comparing it with C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalci...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6325056/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30623257 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13613-018-0479-2 |
_version_ | 1783386064603316224 |
---|---|
author | Yeh, Chun-Fu Wu, Chin-Chieh Liu, Su-Hsun Chen, Kuan-Fu |
author_facet | Yeh, Chun-Fu Wu, Chin-Chieh Liu, Su-Hsun Chen, Kuan-Fu |
author_sort | Yeh, Chun-Fu |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Neutrophil CD64 is widely described as an accurate biomarker for the diagnosis of infection in patients with septic syndrome. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of neutrophil CD64, comparing it with C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) for the diagnosis of infection in adult patients with septic syndrome, based on sepsis-2 criteria. We searched the PubMed and Embase databases and Google Scholar. Original studies reporting the performance of neutrophil CD64 for sepsis diagnosis in adult patients were retained. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve were calculated. RESULTS: We included 14 studies (2471 patients) from 2006 to 2017 in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of neutrophil CD64 for diagnosing infection in adult patients with septic syndrome were 0.87 (95% CI 0.80–0.92) and 0.89 (95% CI 0.82–0.93), respectively. The area under the SROC curve and the DOR were 0.94 (95% CI 0.92–0.96) and 53 (95% CI 22–128), respectively. There was significant heterogeneity between the studies included. Subgroup analyses showed that this heterogeneity was due to differences in sample size and the proportions of patients with sepsis included in the studies. Six studies (927 patients) compared neutrophil CD64 and CRP determinations, and six studies (744 patients) compared neutrophil CD64 and PCT determinations. The area under the SROC curve was larger for neutrophil CD64 than for CRP (0.89 [95% CI 0.87–0.92] vs. 0.84 [95% CI 0.80–0.88], P < 0.05) or PCT (0.89 [95% CI 0.84–0.95] vs. 0.84 [95% CI 0.79–0.89], P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In adult patients with septic syndrome, neutrophil CD64 levels are an excellent biomarker with moderate accuracy outperforming both CRP and PCT determinations. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13613-018-0479-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6325056 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-63250562019-01-23 Comparison of the accuracy of neutrophil CD64, procalcitonin, and C-reactive protein for sepsis identification: a systematic review and meta-analysis Yeh, Chun-Fu Wu, Chin-Chieh Liu, Su-Hsun Chen, Kuan-Fu Ann Intensive Care Research BACKGROUND: Neutrophil CD64 is widely described as an accurate biomarker for the diagnosis of infection in patients with septic syndrome. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of neutrophil CD64, comparing it with C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) for the diagnosis of infection in adult patients with septic syndrome, based on sepsis-2 criteria. We searched the PubMed and Embase databases and Google Scholar. Original studies reporting the performance of neutrophil CD64 for sepsis diagnosis in adult patients were retained. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve were calculated. RESULTS: We included 14 studies (2471 patients) from 2006 to 2017 in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of neutrophil CD64 for diagnosing infection in adult patients with septic syndrome were 0.87 (95% CI 0.80–0.92) and 0.89 (95% CI 0.82–0.93), respectively. The area under the SROC curve and the DOR were 0.94 (95% CI 0.92–0.96) and 53 (95% CI 22–128), respectively. There was significant heterogeneity between the studies included. Subgroup analyses showed that this heterogeneity was due to differences in sample size and the proportions of patients with sepsis included in the studies. Six studies (927 patients) compared neutrophil CD64 and CRP determinations, and six studies (744 patients) compared neutrophil CD64 and PCT determinations. The area under the SROC curve was larger for neutrophil CD64 than for CRP (0.89 [95% CI 0.87–0.92] vs. 0.84 [95% CI 0.80–0.88], P < 0.05) or PCT (0.89 [95% CI 0.84–0.95] vs. 0.84 [95% CI 0.79–0.89], P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In adult patients with septic syndrome, neutrophil CD64 levels are an excellent biomarker with moderate accuracy outperforming both CRP and PCT determinations. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13613-018-0479-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2019-01-08 /pmc/articles/PMC6325056/ /pubmed/30623257 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13613-018-0479-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Research Yeh, Chun-Fu Wu, Chin-Chieh Liu, Su-Hsun Chen, Kuan-Fu Comparison of the accuracy of neutrophil CD64, procalcitonin, and C-reactive protein for sepsis identification: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | Comparison of the accuracy of neutrophil CD64, procalcitonin, and C-reactive protein for sepsis identification: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Comparison of the accuracy of neutrophil CD64, procalcitonin, and C-reactive protein for sepsis identification: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Comparison of the accuracy of neutrophil CD64, procalcitonin, and C-reactive protein for sepsis identification: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of the accuracy of neutrophil CD64, procalcitonin, and C-reactive protein for sepsis identification: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Comparison of the accuracy of neutrophil CD64, procalcitonin, and C-reactive protein for sepsis identification: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | comparison of the accuracy of neutrophil cd64, procalcitonin, and c-reactive protein for sepsis identification: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6325056/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30623257 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13613-018-0479-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT yehchunfu comparisonoftheaccuracyofneutrophilcd64procalcitoninandcreactiveproteinforsepsisidentificationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT wuchinchieh comparisonoftheaccuracyofneutrophilcd64procalcitoninandcreactiveproteinforsepsisidentificationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT liusuhsun comparisonoftheaccuracyofneutrophilcd64procalcitoninandcreactiveproteinforsepsisidentificationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT chenkuanfu comparisonoftheaccuracyofneutrophilcd64procalcitoninandcreactiveproteinforsepsisidentificationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |