Comparison of procalcitonin (PCT) and C-reactive protein (CRP) plasma concentrations at different SOFA scores during the course of sepsis and MODS

270Citations
Citations of this article
119Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objectives: The relation of procalcitonin (PCT) plasma concentrations compared with C-reactive protein (CRP) was analyzed in patients with different severity of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) and systemic inflammation. Patients and methods: PCT, CRP, the sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, the Acute Physiology, Age, Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score and survival were evaluated in 40 patients with systemic inflammation and consecutive MODS over a period of 15 days. Results: Higher SOFA score levels were associated with significantly higher PCT plasma concentrations (SOFA 7-12: PCT 2.62 ng/ml, SOFA 19-24: PCT 15.22 ng/ml) (median), whereas CRP was elevated irrespective of the scores observed (SOFT 7-12: CRP 131 mg/l, SOFT 19-24: CRP 135 mg/l). PCT of non-surviving patients was initially not different from that of survivors but significantly increased after the fourth day following onset of the disease, whereas CRP was not different between both groups throughout the whole observation period. Conclusions: Measurement of PCT concentrations during multiple organ dysfunction syndrome provides more information about the severity and the course of the disease than that of CRP. Regarding the strong association of PCT and the respective score systems in future studies we recommend evaluation also of the severity of inflammation and MODS when PCT concentrations were compared between different types of disease.

Author supplied keywords

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Meisner, M., Tschaikowsky, K., Palmaers, T., & Schmidt, J. (1999). Comparison of procalcitonin (PCT) and C-reactive protein (CRP) plasma concentrations at different SOFA scores during the course of sepsis and MODS. Critical Care, 3(1), 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc306

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free