SuPAR in pleural fluid may function as a biological marker for infection in critically ill patients with pleural effusions

Diagnosis and management of pleural infection

Pleural infection remains a medical challenge. Although closed tube drainage revolutionised treatment in the 19th century, pleural infection still poses a significant health burden with increasing incidence. Diagnosis presents challenges due to non-specific clinical presenting features. Imaging techniques such as chest radiographs, thoracic ultrasound and computed tomography scans aid diagnosis. Pleural fluid analysis, the gold standard, involves assessing gross appearance, biochemical markers and microbiology. Novel biomarkers such as suPAR (soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor) and PAI-1 (plasminogen activator inhibitor-1) show promise in diagnosis and prognosis, and microbiology demonstrates complex microbial diversity and is associated with outcomes. The management of pleural infection involves antibiotic therapy, chest drain insertion, intrapleural fibrinolytic therapy and surgery. Antibiotic therapy relies on empirical broad-spectrum antibiotics based on local policies, infection setting and resistance patterns. Chest drain insertion is the mainstay of management, and use of intrapleural fibrinolytics facilitates effective drainage. Surgical interventions such as video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery and decortication are considered in cases not responding to medical therapy. Risk stratification tools such as the RAPID (renal, age, purulence, infection source and dietary factors) score may help guide tailored management. The roles of other modalities such as local anaesthetic medical thoracoscopy and intrapleural antibiotics are debated. Ongoing research aims to improve outcomes by matching interventions with risk profile and to better understand the development of disease.

Diagnostic value of soluble biomarkers for parapneumonic pleural effusion

Parapneumonic pleural effusion (PPE) is a common complication in patients with pneumonia. Timely and accurate diagnosis of PPE is of great value for its management. Measurement of biomarkers in circulating and pleural fluid have the advantages of easy accessibility, short turn-around time, objectiveness and low cost and thus have utility for PPE diagnosis and stratification. To date, many biomarkers have been reported to be of value for the management of PPE. Here, we review the values of pleural fluid and circulating biomarkers for the diagnosis and stratification PPE. The biomarkers discussed are C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, presepsin, soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 1, lipopolysaccharide-binding protein, inflammatory markers, serum amyloid A, soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor, matrix metalloproteinases, pentraxin-3 and cell-free DNA. We found that none of the available biomarkers has adequate performance for diagnosing and stratifying PPE. Therefore, further work is needed to identify and validate novel biomarkers, and their combinations, for the management of PPE.

Pleural Fluid suPAR Levels Predict the Need for Invasive Management in Parapneumonic Effusions

Rationale: Parapneumonic effusions have a wide clinical spectrum. The majority settle with conservative management but some progress to complex collections requiring intervention. For decades, physicians have relied on pleural fluid pH to determine the need for chest tube drainage despite a lack of prospective validation and no ability to predict the requirement for fibrinolytics or thoracic surgery.Objectives: To study the ability of suPAR (soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor), a potential biomarker of pleural fluid loculation, to predict the need for invasive management compared with conventional fluid biomarkers (pH, glucose, and lactate dehydrogenase) in parapneumonic effusions.Methods: Patients presenting with pleural effusions were prospectively recruited to an observational study with biological samples stored at presentation. Pleural fluid and serum suPAR levels were measured using the suPARnostic double-monoclonal antibody sandwich ELISA on 93 patients with parapneumonic effusions and 47 control subjects (benign and malignant effusions).Measurements and Main Results: Pleural suPAR levels were significantly higher in effusions that were loculated versus nonloculated parapneumonic effusions (median, 132 ng/ml vs. 22 ng/ml; P < 0.001). Pleural suPAR could more accurately predict the subsequent insertion of a chest tube with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-0.98) compared with pleural pH (AUC 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.90). suPAR was superior to the combination of conventional pleural biomarkers (pH, glucose, and lactate dehydrogenase) when predicting the referral for intrapleural fibrinolysis or thoracic surgery (AUC 0.92 vs. 0.76).Conclusions: Raised pleural suPAR was predictive of patients receiving more invasive management of parapneumonic effusions and added value to conventional biomarkers. These results need validation in a prospective multicenter trial.

Soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor for the prediction of ventilator-associated pneumonia

Introduction

Diagnosing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) remains challenging. Soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) has prognostic value in critically ill patients with systemic infection. We hypothesised that plasma suPAR levels accurately predict development of VAP.

Methods

This observational, multicentre, prospective cohort study compared patients at risk for VAP with a control group. Plasma and tracheal aspirate samples were collected. Plasma suPAR levels were measured on the day of diagnosis and 3 days before diagnosis.

Results

The study included 24 VAP patients and 19 control patients. The suPAR concentration measured 3 days before diagnosis was significantly increased in VAP patients versus matched samples of control patients (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.68, 95% CI 0.52–1.00; p=0.04). Similar results were found on the day of diagnosis (AUC 0.77, 95% CI 0.6–0.93; p=0.01). Plasma suPAR was significantly higher in deceased patients (AUC 0.79, 95% CI 0.57–1.00; p<0.001). Combining suPAR with the Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score, C-reactive protein and/or procalcitonin led to a significantly increased discriminative accuracy for predicting VAP and an increased specificity.

Conclusions

suPAR can be used to diagnose VAP with a fair diagnostic accuracy and has a moderate prognostic accuracy to be used in critically ill intensive care unit patients. Its performance improves when added to other clinically available biomarkers (C-reactive protein and procalcitonin) or scoring systems (Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score and Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment).

suPAR can be used to diagnose VAP with a fair diagnostic accuracy and has a moderate prognostic accuracy to be used in critically ill ICU patientshttp://ow.ly/ubmf30nIgZO