Evaluation Studies
Journal Article
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Evaluation of the clinical performance of an automated procalcitonin assay for the quantitative detection of bloodstream infection.

BACKGROUND: Bloodstream infection (BSI) is associated with a high mortality rate. Since the origin of infection is demonstrated in approximately 2/3rds of cases, early and established biomarkers are warranted. We evaluated the clinical performances of automated procalcitonin (PCT) and C-reactive protein (CRP) assays for the quantitative detection of BSI. Analytical performance of the VIDAS(R) BRAHMS PCT assay (bioMérieux, France) was assessed and also compared with the semi-quantitative PCT-Q test (BRAHMS Aktiengesellschaft, Germany).

METHODS: We prospectively included consecutive patients divided into 3 groups at the Dong-A University Medical Center. Patients were categorized according to the criteria of the American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine Consensus Conference (ACCP/SCCM), and also on the basis of catheter-associated bacteremia.

RESULTS: A total 77 patients were enrolled. All mean values of PCT and PCT-Q were consistent with the reference value. Measured PCT concentrations showed good linearity (r=0.983). The between-run, within-run, and total imprecisions were below 5%. The PCT levels in gram-negative bacteremia were significantly higher than those in gram-positive bacteremia. Furthermore, the PCT concentrations were significantly different among non-infection, bacteremia, sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock groups. Our study showed that PCT >0.3 ng/mL had 95.0% sensitivity and 97.3% specificity, whereas CRP >5.46 mg/dL had 85.0% sensitivity and 86.5% specificity for diagnosing sepsis.

CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that, compared with CRP, PCT is a better diagnostic and discriminative biomarker of sepsis categorized according to the ACCP/SCCM. Moreover, catheter-associated bacteremia could be discriminated from sepsis using PCT concentration.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app