BMC infectious diseases · 2022
Neutrophil CD64 index as a superior indicator for diagnosing, monitoring bacterial infection, and evaluating antibiotic therapy: a case control study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gao Yanting, Lin Lihui, Zhao Jinyan, Peng Xia, Li Li
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Neutrophil CD64 (nCD64) index has been widely studied as an indication of bacteria-infected diseases, but the exact usage of nCD64 index in monitoring infections remains debated. So this study aims to investigate the functionality of nCD64 index in tracking infections' progression and evaluating antibiotic therapy.
METHODS: 160 participants (36 healthy controls, 34 culture-negative patients, 56 respiratory tract infected patients, and 34 bloodstream infected patients) were recruited and divided into groups. Data on nCD64 index, T lymphocyte subsets, and conventional indicators, including white blood cell count, neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, procalcitonin, and C-reactive protein, were tested and compared.
RESULTS: Bacteria-infected patients had significantly higher nCD64 indexes (p < 0.05), especially patients with both bloodstream and respiratory tract infections. The nCD64 index could identify infected patients from culture-negative patients or controls, which conventional indicators cannot achieve. We followed up with 24 infected patients and found that their nCD64 indexes were promptly down-regulated after effective antibiotic therapy (3.16 ± 3.01 vs. 1.20 ± 1.47, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The nCD64 index is a sensitive indicator for clinical diagnosis of bacterial infection, especially in monitoring infection and evaluating antibiotics' efficacy. Therefore, nCD64 has the potential to improve diagnostic accuracy and provide rapid feedback on monitoring disease progression in infected patients.
METHODS: 160 participants (36 healthy controls, 34 culture-negative patients, 56 respiratory tract infected patients, and 34 bloodstream infected patients) were recruited and divided into groups. Data on nCD64 index, T lymphocyte subsets, and conventional indicators, including white blood cell count, neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, procalcitonin, and C-reactive protein, were tested and compared.
RESULTS: Bacteria-infected patients had significantly higher nCD64 indexes (p < 0.05), especially patients with both bloodstream and respiratory tract infections. The nCD64 index could identify infected patients from culture-negative patients or controls, which conventional indicators cannot achieve. We followed up with 24 infected patients and found that their nCD64 indexes were promptly down-regulated after effective antibiotic therapy (3.16 ± 3.01 vs. 1.20 ± 1.47, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The nCD64 index is a sensitive indicator for clinical diagnosis of bacterial infection, especially in monitoring infection and evaluating antibiotics' efficacy. Therefore, nCD64 has the potential to improve diagnostic accuracy and provide rapid feedback on monitoring disease progression in infected patients.