Serum procalcitonin and C-reactive protein as markers of sepsis and outcome in patients with neurotrauma and subarachnoid haemorrhage

This prospective study evaluated serum procalcitonin (PCT) and C-reactive protein (CRP) as markers for systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS)/sepsis and mortality in patients with traumatic brain injury and subarachnoid haemorrhage. Sixty-two patients were followed for 7 days. Serum PCT and CRP were measured on days 0, 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Seventy-seven per cent of patients with traumatic brain injury and 83% with subarachnoid haemorrhage developed SIRS or sepsis (P= 0.75). Baseline PCT and CRP were elevated in 35% and 55% ofpatients respectively (P=0.03). There was a statistically non-significant step-wise increase in serum PCT levels from no SIRS (0.4 +/- 0.6 ng/ml) to SIRS (3.05 +/- 9.3 ng/ml) to sepsis (5.5 +/- 12.5 ng/ml). A similar trend was noted in baseline PCT in patients with mild (0.06 +/- 0.9 ng/ml), moderate (0.8 +/- 0.7 ng/ml) and severe head injury (1.2 +/- 1.9 ng/ml). Such a gradation was not observed with serum CRP There was a non-significant trend towards baseline PCT being a better marker of hospital mortality compared with baseline CRP (ROC-AUC 0.56 vs 0.31 respectively). This is the first prospective study to document the high incidence of SIRS in neurosurgical patients. In our study, serum PCT appeared to correlate with severity of traumatic brain injury and mortality. However, it could not reliably distinguish between SIRS and sepsis in this cohort. This is in pan because baseline PCT elevation seemed to correlate with severity of injury. Only a small proportion ofpatients developed sepsis, thus necessitating a larger sample size to demonstrate the diagnostic usefulness of serum PCT as a marker of sepsis. Further clinical trials with larger sample sizes are required to confirm any potential role of PCT as a sepsis and outcome indicator in patients with head injuries or subarachnoid haemorrhage.

From complexity to category: Responding to diagnostic uncertainties of autistic spectrum disorders

Objective: Recent data from Education Queensland has identified rising numbers of children receiving diagnoses of autistic spectrum disorder (ASD). Faced with funding diagnostic pressures, in clinical situations that are complex and inherently uncertain, it is possible that specialists err on the side of a positive diagnosis. This study examines the extent to which possible overinclusion of ASD diagnosis may exist in the presence of uncertainty and factors potentially related to this practice in Queensland. Methods: Using anonymous self-report, all Queensland child psychiatrists and paediatricians who see paediatric patients with development/behavioural problems were surveyed and asked whether they had ever specified an ASD diagnosis in the presence of diagnostic uncertainty. Using logistic regression, elicited responses to the diagnostic uncertainty questions were related to other clinical- and practice-related characteristics. Results: Overall, 58% of surveyed psychiatrists and paediatricians indicated that, in the face of diagnostic uncertainty, they had erred on the side of providing an ASD diagnosis for educational ascertainment and 36% of clinicians had provided an autism diagnosis for Carer's Allowance when Centrelink diagnostic specifications had not been met. Conclusion: In the absence of definitive biological markers, ASD remains a behavioural diagnosis that is often complex and uncertain. In response to systems that demand a categorical diagnostic response, specialists are providing ASD diagnoses, even when uncertain. The motivation for this practice appears to be a clinical risk/benefit analysis of what will achieve the best outcomes for children. It is likely that these practices will continue unless systems change eligibility to funding based on functional impairment rather than medical diagnostic categories.