INTRODUCTION: Eosinopenia is a cheap and forgotten marker of acute infection that has not been evaluated previously in intensive care units (ICUs). The aim of the present study was to test the value of eosinopenia in the diagnosis of sepsis in patients admitted to ICUs. METHODS: A prospective study of consecutive adult patients admitted to a 12-bed medical ICU was performed. Eosinophils were measured at ICU admission. Two intensivists blinded to the eosinophils classified patients as negative or with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock. RESULTS: A total of 177 patients were enrolled. In discriminating noninfected (negative + SIRS) and infected (sepsis + severe sepsis + septic shock) groups, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.89 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.83 to 0.94). Eosinophils at <50 cells/mm3 yielded a sensitivity of 80% (95% CI, 71% to 86%), a specificity of 91% (95% CI, 79% to 96%), a positive likelihood ratio of 9.12 (95% CI, 3.9 to 21), and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.21(95% CI, 0.15 to 0.31). In discriminating SIRS and infected groups, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.74 to 0.94). Eosinophils at <40 cells/mm3 yielded a sensitivity of 80% (95% CI, 71% to 86%), a specificity of 80% (95% CI, 55% to 93%), a positive likelihood ratio of 4 (95% CI, 1.65 to 9.65), and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.25 (95% CI, 0.17 to 0.36). CONCLUSION: Eosinopenia is a good diagnostic marker in distinguishing between noninfection and infection, but is a moderate marker in discriminating between SIRS and infection in newly admitted critically ill patients. Eosinopenia may become a helpful clinical tool in ICU practices.
INTRODUCTION: Eosinopenia is a cheap and forgotten marker of acute infection that has not been evaluated previously in intensive care units (ICUs). The aim of the present study was to test the value of eosinopenia in the diagnosis of sepsis in patients admitted to ICUs. METHODS: A prospective study of consecutive adult patients admitted to a 12-bed medical ICU was performed. Eosinophils were measured at ICU admission. Two intensivists blinded to the eosinophils classified patients as negative or with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock. RESULTS: A total of 177 patients were enrolled. In discriminating noninfected (negative + SIRS) and infected (sepsis + severe sepsis + septic shock) groups, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.89 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.83 to 0.94). Eosinophils at <50 cells/mm3 yielded a sensitivity of 80% (95% CI, 71% to 86%), a specificity of 91% (95% CI, 79% to 96%), a positive likelihood ratio of 9.12 (95% CI, 3.9 to 21), and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.21(95% CI, 0.15 to 0.31). In discriminating SIRS and infected groups, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.74 to 0.94). Eosinophils at <40 cells/mm3 yielded a sensitivity of 80% (95% CI, 71% to 86%), a specificity of 80% (95% CI, 55% to 93%), a positive likelihood ratio of 4 (95% CI, 1.65 to 9.65), and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.25 (95% CI, 0.17 to 0.36). CONCLUSION: Eosinopenia is a good diagnostic marker in distinguishing between noninfection and infection, but is a moderate marker in discriminating between SIRS and infection in newly admitted critically ill patients. Eosinopenia may become a helpful clinical tool in ICU practices.
Authors: Mirjam Christ-Crain; Daiana Jaccard-Stolz; Roland Bingisser; Mikael M Gencay; Peter R Huber; Michael Tamm; Beat Müller Journal: Lancet Date: 2004-02-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: S Harbarth; K Holeckova; C Froidevaux; D Pittet; B Ricou; G E Grau; L Vadas; J Pugin Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2001-08-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Sébastien Gibot; Marie-Nathalie Kolopp-Sarda; Marie C Béné; Aurélie Cravoisy; Bruno Levy; Gilbert C Faure; Pierre-Edouard Bollaert Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-07-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: R Phillip Dellinger; Jean M Carlet; Henry Masur; Herwig Gerlach; Thierry Calandra; Jonathan Cohen; Juan Gea-Banacloche; Didier Keh; John C Marshall; Margaret M Parker; Graham Ramsay; Janice L Zimmerman; Jean-Louis Vincent; Mitchell M Levy Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Roberto Romero; Zeynep Alpay Savasan; Tinnakorn Chaiworapongsa; Stanley M Berry; Juan Pedro Kusanovic; Sonia S Hassan; Bo Hyun Yoon; Samuel Edwin; Moshe Mazor Journal: J Perinat Med Date: 2011-09-30 Impact factor: 1.901
Authors: Stefanie N Linch; Ann M Kelly; Erin T Danielson; Ralph Pero; James J Lee; Jeffrey A Gold Journal: Infect Immun Date: 2009-08-24 Impact factor: 3.441
Authors: Yoon Hee Kim; Hyun Bin Park; Min Jung Kim; Hwan Soo Kim; Hee Seon Lee; Yoon Ki Han; Kyung Won Kim; Myung Hyun Sohn; Kyu-Earn Kim Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2013-01-08 Impact factor: 2.153