Molecular diagnostics of sepsis - Where are we today?

被引:57
|
作者
Bauer, Michael [1 ]
Reinhart, Konrad [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Klinikum Jena, Klin Anasthesiol & Intensivtherapie, D-07743 Jena, Germany
关键词
Transcriptomics; Proteomics; Nucleic acid amplification; Polymerase chain reaction; Infection; Critical care; POLYMERASE-CHAIN-REACTION; TIME PCR ASSAY; ANTIBIOTIC-TREATMENT; BINDING DOMAIN; IDENTIFICATION; DNA; BACTERIAL; THERAPY; IMPACT; INFECTIONS;
D O I
10.1016/j.ijmm.2010.04.006
中图分类号
Q93 [微生物学];
学科分类号
071005 ; 100705 ;
摘要
Rapid diagnosis of sepsis is of outstanding significance as each hour of delay of appropriate antimicrobial therapy increases mortality by 5-10%. As a result, antibiotics are started without a definitive microbial result based on clinical signs in concert with "biomarkers" with high sensitivity but a lack of specificity. Diagnostic uncertainty is compensated for by liberal use of broad spectrum antibiotics with inherent resistance as an increasing public-health problem. Blood culture reflects the current gold-standard but is positive only in approximately 20% of cases and even if positive, results are obtained too late to influence decision making. Culture-independent microbial nucleic acid amplification techniques may allow ways out of this dilemma. In addition to diagnosis of infection, "biomarkers" reflecting the host response can provide valuable information regarding prognosis, course, and response to treatment. Among available single protein markers, procalcitonin (PCT) covers these features best and a PCT-based therapeutic strategy carries potential to reduce antibiotic courses even in life-threatening infections. Recent data from transcriptomic and/or proteomic profiling would, however, indicate that marker panels derived from transcriptomic or proteomic profiling are superior to single proteins to differentiate non-infectious from sepsis-associated systemic inflammation. Multiplexed assay systems, e.g. after platform transfer from whole-genomic chips to multiplexed quantitative PCR are currently being developed with potential to improve sensitivity and specificity. Clinical utility of both, molecular tests to identify the pathogen and the ensuing host response, has still to be evaluated in prospective trials. (C) 2010 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:411 / 413
页数:3
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Diagnosing sepsis: where we're at and where we're going
    Zimmermann, Tobias
    Brealey, David
    Singer, Mervyn
    INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE, 2024, 50 (06) : 957 - 959
  • [32] Summarization and Evaluation; Where are we today?!
    Shamsfard, Mehrnoush
    Saffarian, Amir
    Ghodratnama, Samaneh
    PACLIC 21: THE 21ST PACIFIC ASIA CONFERENCE ON LANGUAGE, INFORMATION AND COMPUTATION, PROCEEDINGS, 2007, : 422 - +
  • [33] Thermal capsulorrhaphy: Where are we today?
    Anderson, K
    McCarty, EC
    Warren, RF
    SPORTS MEDICINE AND ARTHROSCOPY REVIEW, 1999, 7 (02): : 117 - 127
  • [34] Refractive surgery: Where are we today?
    Sachdev, Mahipal S.
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2020, 68 (12) : 2641 - 2642
  • [35] WHERE ARE WE TODAY WITH INHALED AZTREONAM?
    Retsch-Bogart, George Z.
    PEDIATRIC PULMONOLOGY, 2009, : 181 - 183
  • [36] MRI of Adenomyosis: Where Are We Today?
    Michelle Zhang
    Marc Bazot
    Maria Tsatoumas
    Malcolm G. Munro
    Caroline Reinhold
    Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports, 2022, 11 : 225 - 237
  • [37] EMPLOYEE SELECTION - WHERE ARE WE TODAY
    JENSEN, OA
    PUBLIC PERSONNEL REVIEW, 1960, 21 (04): : 249 - 251
  • [38] Patellofemoral arthroplasty, where are we today?
    Sébastien Lustig
    Robert A. Magnussen
    Diane L. Dahm
    David Parker
    Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 2012, 20 : 1216 - 1226
  • [39] Polyphenols and neuroprotection: Where are we today?
    Vauzour, David
    CAHIERS DE NUTRITION ET DE DIETETIQUE, 2014, 49 (04): : 181 - 187
  • [40] Brainstem tumors: Where are we today?
    Recinos, Pablo F.
    Sciubba, Daniel M.
    Jallo, George I.
    PEDIATRIC NEUROSURGERY, 2007, 43 (03) : 192 - 201