Prediction of sepsis in the burn intensive care unit patient

Sepsis is a significant cause for multiple organ failure and death in the burn patient, yet identification in this population is confounded by chronic hypermetabolism and impaired immune function. The purpose of this study was twofold: 1) determine the ability of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and American Burn Association (ABA) criteria to predict sepsis in the burn patient; and 2) develop a model representing the best combination of clinical predictors associated with sepsis in the same population. A retrospective, case-controlled, within-patient comparison of burn patients admitted to a single intensive care unit (ICU) was conducted for the period January 2005 to September 2010. Blood culture results were paired with clinical condition: "positive-sick"; "negative-sick", and "screening-not sick". Data were collected for the 72 hours prior to each blood culture. The most significant predictors were evaluated using logistic regression, Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) and ROC area under the curve (AUC) analyses to assess model predictive ability. Bootstrapping methods were employed to evaluate potential model over-fitting. Fifty-nine subjects were included, representing 177 culture periods. SIRS criteria were not found to be associated with culture type, with an average of 98% of subjects meeting criteria in the 3 days prior. ABA sepsis criteria were significantly different among culture type only on the day prior (p = 0.004). The variables identified for the model included: heart rate>130 beats/min, mean blood pressure<60 mmHg, base deficit<-6 mEq/L, temperature>36°C, use of vasoactive medications, and glucose>150 mg/d1. The model was significant in predicting "positive culture-sick" and sepsis state, with AUC of 0.775 (p < 0.001) and 0.714 (p < .001), respectively; comparatively, the ABA criteria AUC was 0.619 (p = 0.028) and 0.597 (p = .035), respectively. SIRS criteria are not appropriate for identifying sepsis in the burn population. The ABA criteria perform better, but only for the day prior to positive blood culture results. The time period useful to diagnose sepsis using clinical criteria may be limited to 24 hours. A combination of predictors is superior to individual variable trends, yet algorithms or computer support will be necessary for the clinician to find such models useful. ^

Performance of HbA1c for classifying diabetes and diagnostic threshold for diabetes among the Mexican American border community

Objective. In 2009, the International Expert Committee recommended the use of HbA1c test for diagnosis of diabetes. Although it has been recommended for the diagnosis of diabetes, its precise test performance among Mexican Americans is uncertain. A strong “gold standard” would rely on repeated blood glucose measurement on different days, which is the recommended method for diagnosing diabetes in clinical practice. Our objective was to assess test performance of HbA1c in detecting diabetes and pre-diabetes against repeated fasting blood glucose measurement for the Mexican American population living in United States-Mexico border. Moreover, we wanted to find out a specific and precise threshold value of HbA1c for Diabetes Mellitus (DM) and pre-diabetes for this high-risk population which might assist in better diagnosis and better management of patient diabetes. ^ Research design and methods. We used CCHC dataset for our study. In 2004, the Cameron County Hispanic Cohort (CCHC), now numbering 2,574, was established drawn from randomly selected households on the basis of 2000 Census tract data. The CCHC study randomly selected a subset of people (aged 18-64 years) in CCHC cohort households to determine the influence of SES on diabetes and obesity. Among the participants in Cohort-2000, 67.15% are female; all are Hispanic. ^ Individuals were defined as having diabetes mellitus (Fasting plasma glucose [FPG] ≥ 126 mg/dL or pre-diabetes (100 ≤ FPG < 126 mg/dL). HbA1c test performance was evaluated using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves. Moreover, change-point models were used to determine HbA1c thresholds compatible with FPG thresholds for diabetes and pre-diabetes. ^ Results. When assessing Fasting Plasma Glucose (FPG) is used to detect diabetes, the sensitivity and specificity of HbA1c≥ 6.5% was 75% and 87% respectively (area under the curve 0.895). Additionally, when assessing FPG to detect pre-diabetes, the sensitivity and specificity of HbA1c≥ 6.0% (ADA recommended threshold) was 18% and 90% respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of HbA1c≥ 5.7% (International Expert Committee recommended threshold) for detecting pre-diabetes was 31% and 78% respectively. ROC analyses suggest HbA1c as a sound predictor of diabetes mellitus (area under the curve 0.895) but a poorer predictor for pre-diabetes (area under the curve 0.632). ^ Conclusions. Our data support the current recommendations for use of HbA1c in the diagnosis of diabetes for the Mexican American population as it has shown reasonable sensitivity, specificity and accuracy against repeated FPG measures. However, use of HbA1c may be premature for detecting pre-diabetes in this specific population because of the poor sensitivity with FPG. It might be the case that HbA1c is differentiating the cases more effectively who are at risk of developing diabetes. Following these pre-diabetic individuals for a longer-term for the detection of incident diabetes may lead to more confirmatory result.^