Literature DB >> 19519944

Is eosinopenia a reliable marker of sepsis?

Alex Smithson, Rafael Perelló, Josep-Maria Nicolas.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19519944      PMCID: PMC2717429          DOI: 10.1186/cc7877

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care        ISSN: 1364-8535            Impact factor:   9.097


× No keyword cloud information.

We have read with interest the article by Abidi and colleagues [1] in which the authors point out that eosinopenia could be useful to differentiate between noninfection and infection in patients recently admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). The association of eosinopenia with infections is not new and has been described previously [2]. To test this hypothesis, we reviewed 191 patients (age >18 years, with a minimum ICU stay of 24 hours) admitted to the medical ICU of our hospital. We exuded HIV-infected patients and those with hematological malignancies. Total leukocyte and eosinophil count (EC) were measured at ICU admission. The results are shown in Table 1. Although the EC was lower and the proportion of patients with eosinopenia (<40 cells/ml) was higher in the noninfectious systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) group compared with the infectious SIRS group, these differences were not statistically significant. Therefore, the EC was not useful to distinguish between infection and noninfection. Although one limitation of our study was the absence of a non-SIRS group, the EC of our noninfectious SIRS group was similar to the EC found in the non-SIRS group in the study by Abidi and colleagues [1]. Another study failed to observe an association between eosinopenia and bacteremia [3].
Table 1

Baseline characteristics of the ICU patients included in the study

Infectious SIRS (n = 142)Noninfectious SIRS (n = 49)P-value*
Age (years)62.7 ± 15.366.8 ± 14.30.1
APACHE II score16.6 ± 6.517.8 ± 60.27
SAPS II score36.6 ± 12.136.4 ± 11.40.95
SOFA score8.8 ± 3.27.7 ± 2.70.034
Length of ICU stay (days)11.4 ± 11.37.5 ± 7.80.03
Sites of infection
 Community-acquired pneumonia57 (40.1%)NA
 Hospital-acquired pneumonia9 (6.3%)NA
 Urinary tract infection11 (7.7%)NA
 Bacterial meningitis4 (2.8%)NA
 Peritonitis23 (16.2%)NA
 Other infections38 (26.7%)NA
ICU mortality39 (27.4%)13 (26.5%)0.89
Total leukocyte count (cells/ml)13,497 ± 7,25410,345 ± 5,5690.006
Total eosinophil count (cells/ml)105 ± 220114 ± 1860.8
Eosinopenia (<40 cells/ml)70 (49.3%)18 (36.7%)0.12

Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation or n (%). *Calculated by means of the Student t-test (quantitative variables) and chi-square test (qualitative variables). APACHE, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation; ICU, intensive care unit; NA, not applicable; SAPS, Simplified Acute Physiology Score; SIRS, systemic inflammatory response syndrome; SOFA, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment.

Baseline characteristics of the ICU patients included in the study Data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation or n (%). *Calculated by means of the Student t-test (quantitative variables) and chi-square test (qualitative variables). APACHE, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation; ICU, intensive care unit; NA, not applicable; SAPS, Simplified Acute Physiology Score; SIRS, systemic inflammatory response syndrome; SOFA, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment. In conclusion, eosinopenia was not a reliable marker of infection. Other analytical parameters, such as C-reactive protein, have demonstrated to be helpful not only for the diagnosis of infection but also as a marker of severity of organ dysfunction in sepsis [4].

Authors' response

Khalid Abidi, Ibtissam Khoudri, Jihane Belayachi, Naoufel Madani, Amine Ali Zeggwagh and Redouane Abouqal Smithson and colleagues, in their letter on our report recently published in Critical Care [1], suggest that eosinopenia is not a reliable marker of infection in critically ill patients. We have demonstrated for the first time that eosinopenia is a good diagnostic marker of infection on ICU admission with good sensitivity and specificity [1]. The study performed by Smithson and colleagues has several limitations that should be considered. First, the retrospective nature of their study could cause methodological limitations, at the least because some data were not available for all patients. Second, to evaluate the usefulness of EC to distinguish between noninfectious and infectious SIRS patients, Smithson and colleagues do not describe how the infection was defined and confirmed. Third, no non-SIRS group was included, although the authors report that the EC in the noninfectious SIRS group was similar to that found in our non-SIRS group. However, ECs for non-SIRS groups from both studies should really be determined for a completely valid comparison.

Abbreviations

EC: eosinophil count; ICU: intensive care unit; SIRS: systemic inflammatory response syndrome.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
  4 in total

1.  Utility of eosinophil count as predictor of bacteremia.

Authors:  Mary Jane Setterberg; William Newman; Anil Potti; Raymond A Smego
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2004-02-01       Impact factor: 9.079

2.  Eosinopenia is a reliable marker of sepsis on admission to medical intensive care units.

Authors:  Khalid Abidi; Ibtissam Khoudri; Jihane Belayachi; Naoufel Madani; Aicha Zekraoui; Amine Ali Zeggwagh; Redouane Abouqal
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2008-04-24       Impact factor: 9.097

3.  [Value of eosinopenia in inflammatory disorders: an "old" marker revisited].

Authors:  H Gil; N Magy; F Mauny; J-L Dupond
Journal:  Rev Med Interne       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 0.728

4.  Procalcitonin and C-reactive protein during systemic inflammatory response syndrome, sepsis and organ dysfunction.

Authors:  Gian Paolo Castelli; Claudio Pognani; Michael Meisner; Antonio Stuani; Daniela Bellomi; Laura Sgarbi
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2004-06-10       Impact factor: 9.097

  4 in total
  6 in total

1.  Eosinopenia, an early marker of increased mortality in critically ill medical patients.

Authors:  Khalid Abidi; Jihane Belayachi; Youssef Derras; Mina El Khayari; Tarek Dendane; Naoufel Madani; Ibtissam Khoudri; Amine Ali Zeggwagh; Redouane Abouqal
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2011-03-03       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  Eosinopenia as a Marker of Outcome in Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Authors:  Mohammad Hossein Rahimi-Rad; Behzad Asgari; Negar Hosseinzadeh; Ali Eishi
Journal:  Maedica (Buchar)       Date:  2015-03

3.  Eosinophil count at intensive care unit admission was not predictor of hospital mortality: results of a case control study.

Authors:  Emmanuel Jesús Escobar-Valdivia; Julio Edgardo González-Aguirre; Eunice Rebeca Carrillo-Cisneros; Karla Carolina Guerra-Leza; Roberto Mercado-Longoría
Journal:  J Intensive Care       Date:  2015-06-06

4.  Exploration of eosinopenia as a diagnostic parameter to differentiate sepsis from systemic inflammatory response syndrome: Results from an observational study.

Authors:  Dimple Anand; Sumit Ray; Seema Bhargava; Lalit M Srivastava; Ashish Garg; Imran Gafoor; Rahul Singh; Debashish Dhar
Journal:  Indian J Crit Care Med       Date:  2016-05

Review 5.  The role of eosinophils in sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a scoping review.

Authors:  Zainab Al Duhailib; Malik Farooqi; Joshua Piticaru; Waleed Alhazzani; Parameswaran Nair
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  2021-01-25       Impact factor: 6.713

6.  Eosinophil count and neutrophil-lymphocyte count ratio as prognostic markers in patients with bacteremia: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Roser Terradas; Santiago Grau; Jordi Blanch; Marta Riu; Pere Saballs; Xavier Castells; Juan Pablo Horcajada; Hernando Knobel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-08-09       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.