» Articles » PMID: 33447966

A Randomized Trial to Compare Procalcitonin and C-reactive Protein in Assessing Severity of Sepsis and in Guiding Antibacterial Therapy in Egyptian Critically Ill Patients

Overview
Journal Ir J Med Sci
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2021 Jan 15
PMID 33447966
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Procalcitonin (PCT) and C-reactive protein (CRP) are the main used biomarkers for sepsis and in guiding antibiotic therapy, although PCT high cost limits its use in developing countries.

Objective: Comparing between PCT and CRP in assessing severity of sepsis and in guiding antibacterial therapy in critically ill patients.

Methods: In a prospective randomized study, 60 patients were included from an Egyptian Intensive Care Unit. Patients were divided into CRP and PCT groups. CRP and PCT were measured at baseline and on days 4 and 7. Validity, sensitivity, and specificity of both biomarkers and their correlation with sepsis scores (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) and Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA)) were evaluated. Antibacterial continuation at days 4 and 7 was assessed.

Results: The diagnostic accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity of PCT were higher than CRP (80.79% vs 69.45%, 36% vs 28.7%, 87.6% vs 72.4%, respectively). PCT levels were significantly correlated with APACHE II score (P ≤ 0.0001) and SOFA score (P = 0.005), while CRP levels were not correlated with APACHEII and SOFA scores,(P > 0.05). PCT was associated with less antibacterial exposure (33% stopped their antibiotics on day 4 versus 6% in CRP, P = 0.009). Only 33% continued their antibacterial regimen in PCT group after 7 days versus 83% in CRP group (*P ≤ 0.0001).

Conclusion: PCT is a more accurate diagnostic and prognostic biomarker than CRP in patients with sepsis. PCT significantly shortened patients' exposure to antibacterial therapy and hospital length of stay.

Citing Articles

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2024.

Shime N, Nakada T, Yatabe T, Yamakawa K, Aoki Y, Inoue S Acute Med Surg. 2025; 12(1):e70037.

PMID: 39996161 PMC: 11848044. DOI: 10.1002/ams2.70037.


Procalcitonin Guided Antibiotic Stewardship.

Kiya G, Asefa E, Abebe G, Mekonnen Z Biomark Insights. 2024; 19:11772719241298197.

PMID: 39559409 PMC: 11571249. DOI: 10.1177/11772719241298197.


Role of biomarkers in antimicrobial stewardship: physicians' perspectives.

Seok H, Park D Korean J Intern Med. 2024; 39(3):413-429.

PMID: 38715231 PMC: 11076897. DOI: 10.3904/kjim.2023.558.


Procalcitonin-guided antibiotic therapy may shorten length of treatment and may improve survival-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Papp M, Kiss N, Baka M, Trasy D, Zubek L, Fehervari P Crit Care. 2023; 27(1):394.

PMID: 37833778 PMC: 10576288. DOI: 10.1186/s13054-023-04677-2.


Machine Learning Models for Prediction of Severe Pneumonia after Kidney Transplantation: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.

Liu Y, Qiu T, Hu H, Kong C, Zhang Y, Wang T Diagnostics (Basel). 2023; 13(17).

PMID: 37685276 PMC: 10486565. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13172735.


References
1.
Singer M, Deutschman C, Seymour C, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M . The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016; 315(8):801-10. PMC: 4968574. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.0287. View

2.
Ryu J, Yang J, Lee D, Park C, Suh G, Jeon K . Clinical Usefulness of Procalcitonin and C-Reactive Protein as Outcome Predictors in Critically Ill Patients with Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock. PLoS One. 2015; 10(9):e0138150. PMC: 4569178. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138150. View

3.
Fleischmann C, Scherag A, Adhikari N, Hartog C, Tsaganos T, Schlattmann P . Assessment of Global Incidence and Mortality of Hospital-treated Sepsis. Current Estimates and Limitations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015; 193(3):259-72. DOI: 10.1164/rccm.201504-0781OC. View

4.
Lam S, Bauer S, Duggal A . Procalcitonin-based algorithms to initiate or stop antibiotic therapy in critically ill patients: Is it time to rethink our strategy?. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2015; 47(1):20-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2015.10.017. View

5.
Mitaka C . Clinical laboratory differentiation of infectious versus non-infectious systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Clin Chim Acta. 2004; 351(1-2):17-29. DOI: 10.1016/j.cccn.2004.08.018. View