Clemente C, Fuentes Ferrer ME, Ortega Heredia D, Julián Jiménez A, Martín-Sánchez FJ, González Del Castillo J. Usefulness of combining inflammatory biomarkers and clinical scales in an emergency department to stratify risk in patients with infections.
Emergencias 2024;
36:9-16. [PMID:
38318737 DOI:
10.55633/s3me/04.2023]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether combining biomarkers of inflammatory response and clinical scales can improve risk stratification of patients with suspected infection in a hospital emergency department (ED).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Prospective observational study of ED patients treated for infections. We collected the following information on arrival: demographic and baseline clinical data, comorbidities, the focus of infection, and values for the following inflammatory biomarkers: leukocyte counts, and C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and midregional proadrenomedullin (MR-proADM) concentrations. Scores on the following clinical scales were recorded based on the variables gathered: the SIRS (Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome) criteria, the qSOFA (Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment), and the NEWS (National Early Warning Score). The main outcome was a composite measure that included 30-day death or need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission.
RESULTS
A total of 473 patients with a mean (SD) age of 70.3 (19.2) years were included. The majority were men (257, 54.3%). Thirty-one (6.6%) died within 30 days and 16 (3.4%) were admitted to the ICU. The composite outcome (death or ICU admission) occurred in 45 patients (9.5%). The MR-proADM concentration, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.739 (95% CI, 0671-0.809) was a better predictor than the other biomarkers or clinical scales, although the differences between MR-proADM and either lactate concentration or the NEWS were not significant in the comparisons (P = .064). Combining the MR-proADM concentration with any of the scales did not significantly improve risk prediction.
CONCLUSION
Risk stratification of patients with infection is a key part of ED decision-making. MR-proADM concentration is superior to other biomarkers and clinical prediction scales for predicting short-term prognosis in the ED. Combining MR-proADM measurement with other scales or measures does not improve the yield.
Collapse