Predictive value of heparin-binding protein combined with sequential organ failure assessment score in patients with septic shock.
10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-4352.2019.03.015
- Author:
Yanan YANG
1
;
Huanzhang SHAO
;
Yuan SHI
;
Xin DONG
;
Xu WANG
;
Bingyu QIN
Author Information
1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, People's Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou 450003, Henan, China. Corresponding author: Qin Bingyu, Email: Nicolasby@126.com.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH:
Antimicrobial Cationic Peptides/analysis*;
Blood Proteins/analysis*;
Carrier Proteins/analysis*;
Female;
Humans;
Male;
Organ Dysfunction Scores;
Predictive Value of Tests;
Shock, Septic/diagnosis*
- From:
Chinese Critical Care Medicine
2019;31(3):336-340
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE:To explore the predictive value of heparin-binding protein (HBP) combined with sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score in patients with septic shock.
METHODS:Seventy-eight patients with sepsis admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) of Henan Provincial People's Hospital from December 2016 to May 2017 were enrolled. Thirty healthy persons were enrolled as controls. The patient's gender, age, length of ICU stay, and blood culture results, white blood cell count (WBC), C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), blood lactate (Lac), HBP, SOFA score, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) score, organ failure and vasoactive agents usage within 24 hours of admission were recorded. The differences in the above indicators between the groups were compared, and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was drawn to evaluate the predictive value of HBP, SOFA score and their combination in patients with septic shock.
RESULTS:All patients were enrolled in the final analysis, including 64 with sepsis and 14 with septic shock. Compared with the sepsis group, the proportion of patients with septic shock who were positive for blood culture, organ failure, and vasoactive agents was higher [57.1% (8/14) vs. 7.8% (5/64), 100.0% (14/14) vs. 65.6% (42/64), 100.0% (14/14) vs. 18.8% (12/64), all P < 0.01], SOFA and APACHE II scores were also higher (SOFA: 8.93±4.16 vs. 5.89±2.68, APACHE II: 22.29±4.89 vs. 15.28±5.14, both P < 0.01); however, there was no significant difference in gender, age or length of ICU stay between the two groups. Compared with the healthy control group, HBP, PCT, CRP and Lac levels were significantly increased in the sepsis group and the septic shock group. HBP in the septic shock group was significantly higher than that in the sepsis group (μg/L: 120.33±43.49 vs. 68.95±54.15, P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference in PCT, CRP or Lac between septic shock group and sepsis group [PCT (μg/L): 1.42 (0.47, 46.00) vs. 0.71 (0.19, 4.50), CRP (mg/L): 102.90±78.12 vs. 102.07±72.15, Lac (mmol/L): 1.81 (1.14, 3.65) vs. 1.59 (1.17, 2.24), all P > 0.05]. It was shown by ROC curve analysis that the area under the ROC curve (AUC) of SOFA score for predicting septic shock was 0.715 [95% confidence interval (95%CI) = 0.540-0.890, P = 0.012], and when the optimal cut-off value was 7.5, the sensitivity was 64.3%, the specificity was 76.6%. The AUC of HBP was 0.814 (95%CI = 0.714-0.913, P < 0.001), and when the optimal cut-off value was 89.43 μg/L, the sensitivity was 78.6%, the specificity was 76.6%; when the two were combined, the AUC was 0.829 (95%CI = 0.724-0.935, P < 0.001), the sensitivity was 92.9%, and the specificity was 61.9%.
CONCLUSIONS:HBP can be used as a biological indicator for predicting septic shock, and the accuracy of predicting septic shock can be improved with the combination of SOFA score.
