Journal of Diagnostics Concepts & Practice ›› 2023, Vol. 22 ›› Issue (02): 147-153.doi: 10.16150/j.1671-2870.2023.02.007
• Original article • Previous Articles Next Articles
LIN Han1, ZUBAIREGULI Maimaitiabula2, SU Tongxuan1()
Received:
2022-06-24
Online:
2023-04-25
Published:
2023-08-31
CLC Number:
LIN Han, ZUBAIREGULI Maimaitiabula, SU Tongxuan. Value of heparin-binding protein in diagnosis of bloodstream infection[J]. Journal of Diagnostics Concepts & Practice, 2023, 22(02): 147-153.
Table 1
Differences in serum levels of biomarkers between the bloodstream infection and non-bloodstream infection [Median(P25,P75)]
Biomarkers | Patients with blood culture positive (n=207) | Patients with blood culture negative (n=94) | P |
---|---|---|---|
HBP(ng/mL) | 76.13(22.90, 148.27) | 15.29(7.15, 44.46) | <0.001 |
PCT(ng/mL) | 1.01(0.33, 4.92) | 0.27(0.11, 1.33) | <0.001 |
CRP(ng/mL) | 120.80(52.00, 178.1) | 52.50(13.95, 120.45) | <0.001 |
WBC(109/L) | 10.28(5.80, 14.36) | 7.40(3.69, 12.43) | 0.001 |
ANC(109/L) | 8.99(4.78, 12.39) | 5.65(2.50, 8.96) | <0.001 |
NLCR | 11.30(6.27, 19.04) | 7.45(3.98, 13.19) | 0.001 |
Table 2
Concentrations of serum biomarkers in patients infected with distinct types of pathogenic bacterial [Median(P25,P75)]
Biomarkers | Gram-negative Bacteria(n=136) | Gram-positive Bacteria(n=53) | Fungi(n=18) |
---|---|---|---|
HBP(ng/mL) | 89.15(37.85, 168.46)* | 70.26(17.37, 141.87)Δ | 22.90(11.10, 34.64)*Δ |
PCT(ng/mL) | 1.47(0.45, 7.12)*# | 0.40(0.19, 1.36)# | 0.66(0.29, 1.82)* |
CRP(mg/L) | 134.40(69.18, 186.18)*# | 84.90(18.40, 150.00)# | 60.00(52.00,100.00)* |
WBC(109/L) | 11.48(7.13, 15.28)*# | 8.76(5.56, 13.08)# | 5.97(3.55, 11.63)* |
ANC(109/L) | 9.56(5.63, 13.08)*# | 7.08(4.02, 11.12)# | 4.60(2.69, 9.99)* |
NLCR | 12.40(7.52, 20.91)*# | 8.79(4.50, 14.78)# | 5.34(3.80, 12.45)* |
Table 3
Concentrations of serum HBP in patients infected with distinct pathogenic bacterial
Species | Number | Percent | HBP (ng/mL) [Median(P25, P75)] |
---|---|---|---|
Gram-negative bacteria | |||
Klebsiella Pneumoniae | 66 | 31.89% | 100.77(49.09, 186.47) |
Acinetobacter baumannii | 23 | 11.11% | 106.31(20.88, 149.04) |
Pseudomonas aeruginosa | 17 | 8.21% | 112.07(46.35, 162.37) |
Escherichia coli | 16 | 7.73% | 57.05(17.80, 113.95) |
other | 14 | 6.76% | 70.99(22.92,142.62) |
Gram-positive bacteria | |||
Staphylococcus epidermidis | 14 | 6.76% | 125.04(43.53, 242.84) |
Enterococcus faecalis | 10 | 4.83% | 102.44(16.45, 175.84) |
Staphylococcus aureus | 7 | 3.38% | 24.59(17.00, 141.87) |
Staphylococcus hominis | 4 | 1.93% | 40.79(12.94, 111.50) |
other | 18 | 8.70% | 64;45(13.87, 112.43) |
Fungi | |||
Candida parapsilosis | 9 | 4.35% | 22.90(7.15, 62.23) |
Candida tropicalis | 4 | 1.93% | 23.19(11.65, 156.98) |
other | 5 | 2.42% | 22.90(<5.90, 45.11) |
Table 4
The diagnostic efficacy of each biomarker for bloodstream infection
Biomarkers | AUC | Asymptotic significance | 95% Confidence interval | Cut-off | Sensitivity | Specificity |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HBP(ng/mL) | 0.742 | <0.001 | 0.676-0.808 | 38.30 | 66.80% | 74.40% |
PCT(ng/mL) | 0.685 | <0.001 | 0.614-0.757 | 0.24 | 84.70% | 47.60% |
CRP(mg/L) | 0.680 | <0.001 | 0.610-0.750 | 103.50 | 54.70% | 74.40% |
WBC(109/L) | 0.622* | 0.001 | 0.548-0.697 | 8.25 | 64.70% | 59.80% |
ANC | 0.651* | <0.001 | 0.578-0.723 | 8.61 | 51.60% | 75.60% |
NLCR | 0.618* | 0.002 | 0.545-0.692 | 6.86 | 72.10% | 48.80% |
Table 5
The diagnostic efficacy of each biomarker for bloodstream infection in non-malignant tumor or non-hematopoietic disease
Biomarkers | AUC | Asymptotic significance | 95% Confidence interval | Cut-off | Sensitivity | Specificity |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HBP | 0.708 | <0.001 | 0.622-0.794 | 59.03 | 60.50% | 78.70% |
PCT | 0.598 | 0.039 | 0.503-0.694 | 0.24 | 85.50% | 33.40% |
CRP | 0.602 | 0.033 | 0.511-0.692 | 103.50 | 55.80% | 66.00% |
WBC | 0.527 | 0.57 | 0.433-0.621 | 10.16 | 53.50% | 61.70% |
ANC | 0.559 | 0.212 | 0.467-0.651 | 8.61 | 52.90% | 66.00% |
NLCR | 0.554 | 0.257 | 0.461-0.647 | 9.93 | 58.70% | 55.30% |
Table 6
The diagnostic efficacy of HBP combined with other biomarkers for bloodstream infection
Combined biomarkers | AUC | Asymptotic significance | 95% Confidence interval | Sensitivity | Specificity |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
HBP+PCT | 0.751 | <0.001 | 0.686-0.817 | 63.70% | 78.00% |
HBP+CRP | 0.734 | <0.001 | 0.668-0.800 | 70.50% | 68.30% |
HBP+WBC | 0.727 | <0.001 | 0.660-0.794 | 70.50% | 69.50% |
HBP+ANC | 0.732 | <0.001 | 0.665-0.800 | 79.50% | 62.20% |
HBP+NLCR | 0.743 | <0.001 | 0.677-0.809 | 67.40% | 74.40% |
ALL biomarkers combined | 0.737 | <0.001 | 0.670-0.805 | 79.50% | 64.60% |
[1] |
XIE J, WANG H, KANG Y, et al. The Epidemiology of Sepsis in Chinese ICUs: A National Cross-Sectional Survey[J]. Crit Care Med, 2020, 48(3):e209-e218.
doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004155 URL |
[2] |
BAUER M, GERLACH H, VOGELMANN T, et al. Mortality in sepsis and septic shock in Europe, North America and Australia between 2009 and 2019- results from a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Crit Care, 2020, 24(1):239.
doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-02950-2 |
[3] |
GOTO M, AL-HASAN M N. Overall burden of bloodstream infection and nosocomial bloodstream infection in North America and Europe[J]. Clin Microbiol Infect, 2013, 19(6):501-509.
doi: 10.1111/1469-0691.12195 URL |
[4] |
PAOLI C J, REYNOLDS M A, SINHA M, et al. Epidemio-logy and Costs of Sepsis in the United States-An Analysis Based on Timing of Diagnosis and Severity Level[J]. Crit Care Med, 2018, 46(12):1889-1897.
doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003342 URL |
[5] |
PIERRAKOS C, VINCENT J L. Sepsis biomarkers: a review[J]. Crit Care, 2010, 14(1):R15.
doi: 10.1186/cc8872 URL |
[6] |
SHAFER W M, MARTIN L E, SPITZNAGEL J K. Catio-nic antimicrobial proteins isolated from human neutrophil granulocytes in the presence of diisopropyl fluorophosphate[J]. Infect Immun, 1984, 45(1):29-35.
doi: 10.1128/iai.45.1.29-35.1984 URL |
[7] |
GAUTAM N, OLOFSSON A M, HERWALD H, et al. Heparin-binding protein (HBP/CAP37): a missing link in neutrophil-evoked alteration of vascular permeability[J]. Nat Med, 2001, 7(10):1123-1127.
doi: 10.1038/nm1001-1123 pmid: 11590435 |
[8] |
FISHER J, LINDER A. Heparin-binding protein: a key player in the pathophysiology of organ dysfunction in sepsis[J]. J Intern Med, 2017, 281(6):562-574.
doi: 10.1111/joim.12604 pmid: 28370601 |
[9] | 刘珍, 王峰, 高晖, 等. 血浆肝素结合蛋白联合降钙素原及C-反应蛋白对脓毒症及脓毒性休克患者诊断价值的研究[J]. 中国卫生检验杂志, 2021, 31(22):2696-2701. |
LIU Z, WANG F, GAO H, et al. A study on the diagnostic value of plasma heparin binding protein combined with procalcitonin and C-reactive protein for patients with sepsis and septic shock[J]. Chin J Health Lab Technol, 2021, 31(22):2696-2701. | |
[10] | 李磊, 郑传明, 夏群, 等. 肝素结合蛋白联合降钙素原在评估急性胰腺炎合并感染中的预测价值[J]. 中华全科医学, 2020, 18(6):927-929,1068. |
LI L, ZHENG C M, XIA Q, et al. Predictive value of heparin-binding protein combined with procalcitonin in the assessment of acute pancreatitis co-infection[J]. Chin J Gen Pract, 2020, 18(6):927-929,1068. | |
[11] | 张晓彤, 国世星, 邵青, 等. 多因子联合检测在诊断血流感染和指导抗菌药物早期合理使用中的应用价值[J]. 实用检验医师杂志, 2020, 12(1):37-41. |
ZHANG X T, GUO S X, SHAO Q, et al. Application value of multi-factor combined detection in diagnosis of bloodstream infection and guidance for early rational use of antibacterial drugs[J]. Chin J Clin Pathol, 2020, 12(1):37-41. | |
[12] | 潘晓微, 李克诚. 血浆肝素结合蛋白和降钙素原对血流感染的诊断价值[J]. 检验医学, 2017, 32(11):999-1003. |
PAN X W, LI K C. Plasma heparin binding protein and procalcitonin in the diagnosis of bloodstream infection[J]. Lab Med, 2017, 32(11):999-1003. | |
[13] |
MELLHAMMAR L, THELAUS L, ELÉN S, et al. Heparin binding protein in severe COVID-19-A prospective observational cohort study[J]. PLoS One, 2021, 16(4):e0249570.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249570 URL |
[14] |
LINDER A, ÅKESSON P, INGHAMMAR M, et al. Ele-vated plasma levels of heparin-binding protein in intensive care unit patients with severe sepsis and septic shock[J]. Crit Care, 2012, 16(3):R90.
doi: 10.1186/cc11353 URL |
[15] |
WU Y L, YO C H, HSU W T, et al. Accuracy of Heparin-Binding Protein in Diagnosing Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis[J]. Crit Care Med, 2021, 49(1):e80-e90.
doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004738 URL |
[16] |
ANSAR W, GHOSH S. C-reactive protein and the bio-logy of disease[J]. Immunol Res, 2013, 56(1):131-142.
doi: 10.1007/s12026-013-8384-0 URL |
[17] |
LI S, RONG H, GUO Q, et al. Serum procalcitonin levels distinguish Gram-negative bacterial sepsis from Gram-positive bacterial and fungal sepsis[J]. J Res Med Sci, 2016, 21:39.
pmid: 27904585 |
[18] |
WACKER C, PRKNO A, BRUNKHORST F M, et al. Procalcitonin as a diagnostic marker for sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Lancet Infect Dis, 2013, 13(5):426-435.
doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70323-7 pmid: 23375419 |
[19] |
KERN W V, RIEG S. Burden of bacterial bloodstream infection-a brief update on epidemiology and significance of multidrug-resistant pathogens[J]. Clin Microbiol Infect, 2020, 26(2):151-157.
doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2019.10.031 URL |
[20] | 万会林, 孔德华, 周万青, 等. 降钙素原、C-反应蛋白、白细胞和中性粒细胞在鉴别血流感染中的应用价值[J]. 世界复合医学, 2019, 5(12):41-43. |
WAN H L, KONG D H, ZHOU W Q, et al. The Application Value of Procalcitonin, C-reactive Protein, Leukocytes and Neutrophils in Differential Bloodstream Infection[J]. World J Complex Med, 2019, 5(12):41-43. | |
[21] |
OBERHOFFER M, STONANS I, RUSSWURM S, et al. Procalcitonin expression in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells and its modulation by lipopolysaccharides and sepsis-related cytokines in vitro[J]. J Lab Clin Med, 1999, 134(1):49-55.
pmid: 10402059 |
[22] |
BERAN O, POTMĚŠIL R, HOLUB M. Differences in Toll-like receptor expression and cytokine production after stimulation with heat-killed Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria[J]. Folia Microbiol (Praha), 2011, 56(3):283-287.
doi: 10.1007/s12223-011-0025-1 URL |
[23] |
SNÄLL J, LINNÉR A, UHLMANN J, et al. Differential neutrophil responses to bacterial stimuli: Streptococcal strains are potent inducers of heparin-binding protein and resistin-release[J]. Sci Rep, 2016, 6:21288.
doi: 10.1038/srep21288 pmid: 26887258 |
[1] | ZHANG Shu, WANG Lulu, SUN Jing, JIANG Shihu. Value of procalcitonin and C-reactive protein in early stage acute biliary pancreatitis [J]. Journal of Diagnostics Concepts & Practice, 2019, 18(06): 668-671. |
[2] | WANG Yuanyuan, FAN Qiuling. Clinical value of serum procalcitonin in patients of chronic kidney disease with bacterial infection [J]. Journal of Diagnostics Concepts & Practice, 2019, 18(03): 353-359. |
[3] | DU Kun, YANG Xi, BIAN Binxian, REN Yiqian, ZHANG Guanghui. Comparison of diagnostic value of new infection biomarker presepsin with procalcitonin, C-reactive protein and interleukin-6 in diagnosis of bacterial infection [J]. Journal of Diagnostics Concepts & Practice, 2018, 17(05): 581-585. |
[4] | SHEN Xiaohong, CHEN Huifen, ZHANG Jun, YE Jianbo, ZHANG Xianhua. Distribution of pathogenic bacteria in neonatal bloodstream infection and analysis of drug resistance during 2014 to 2017 [J]. Journal of Diagnostics Concepts & Practice, 2018, 17(03): 266-271. |
[5] | LU Shijuan, SHANG Qingyi, JIANG Zhihong, CHEN Tongpai, ZHANG Xiaoqing. Value of IP-10 combined with PCT and hs-CRP for the diagnosis of neonatal infection [J]. Journal of Diagnostics Concepts & Practice, 2018, 17(03): 304-307. |
[6] | HE Jingjing, ZHANG Yan, ZHOU Yuzhen, LIU Jingyao, ZHAO Dongmei, ZHENG Zunrong. Dynamic monitoring of levels of procalcitonin and C-reactive protein in acute brucellosis [J]. Journal of Diagnostics Concepts & Practice, 2017, 16(06): 617-621. |
[7] | WANG Linlin, ZHU Chengcheng, ZHANG Qingwu, CHEN Ting, WU Shun. Diagnostic value of serum procalcitonin, IL-6 and C-reactive protein for community acquired pneumonia in elderly patients [J]. Journal of Diagnostics Concepts & Practice, 2017, 16(05): 532-536. |
[8] | . [J]. Journal of Diagnostics Concepts & Practice, 2016, 15(02): 157-159. |
[9] | . [J]. Journal of Diagnostics Concepts & Practice, 2014, 13(04): 416-418. |
[10] | . [J]. Journal of Diagnostics Concepts & Practice, 2014, 13(02): 202-205. |
[11] | . [J]. Journal of Diagnostics Concepts & Practice, 2013, 12(06): 628-630. |
[12] | . [J]. Journal of Diagnostics Concepts & Practice, 2011, 10(05): 471-474. |
[13] | . [J]. Journal of Diagnostics Concepts & Practice, 2008, 7(01): 77-79. |
[14] | . [J]. Journal of Diagnostics Concepts & Practice, 2007, 6(05): 406-408. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||