Host biomarkers and combinatorial scores for the detection of serious and invasive bacterial infection in pediatric patients with fever without source.

BACKGROUND Improved tools are required to detect bacterial infection in children with fever without source (FWS), especially when younger than 3 years old. The aim of the present study was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of a host signature combining for the first time two viral-induced biomarkers, tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL) and interferon γ-induced protein-10 (IP-10), with a bacterial-induced one, C-reactive protein (CRP), to reliably predict bacterial infection in children with fever without source (FWS) and to compare its performance to routine individual biomarkers (CRP, procalcitonin (PCT), white blood cell and absolute neutrophil counts, TRAIL, and IP-10) and to the Labscore. METHODS This was a prospective diagnostic accuracy study conducted in a single tertiary center in children aged less than 3 years old presenting with FWS. Reference standard etiology (bacterial or viral) was assigned by a panel of three independent experts. Diagnostic accuracy (AUC, sensitivity, specificity) of host individual biomarkers and combinatorial scores was evaluated in comparison to reference standard outcomes (expert panel adjudication and microbiological diagnosis). RESULTS 241 patients were included. 68 of them (28%) were diagnosed with a bacterial infection and 5 (2%) with invasive bacterial infection (IBI). Labscore, ImmunoXpert, and CRP attained the highest AUC values for the detection of bacterial infection, respectively 0.854 (0.804-0.905), 0.827 (0.764-0.890), and 0.807 (0.744-0.869). Labscore and ImmunoXpert outperformed the other single biomarkers with higher sensitivity and/or specificity and showed comparable performance to one another although slightly reduced sensitivity in children < 90 days of age. CONCLUSION Labscore and ImmunoXpert demonstrate high diagnostic accuracy for safely discriminating bacterial infection in children with FWS aged under and over 90 days, supporting their adoption in the assessment of febrile patients

Novel emboli protection system during cardiac surgery: a multi-center, randomized, clinical trial.

BACKGROUND Stroke is a major cause of morbidity and mortality during open-heart surgery. Up to 60% of intraoperative cerebral events are emboli induced. This randomized, controlled, multicenter trial is the first human study evaluating the safety and efficacy of a novel aortic cannula producing simultaneous forward flow and backward suction for extracting solid and gaseous emboli from the ascending aorta and aortic arch upon their intraoperative release. METHODS Sixty-six patients (25 females; 68±10 years) undergoing elective aortic valve replacement surgery, with or without coronary artery bypass graft surgery, were randomized to the use of the CardioGard (CardioGard Medical, Or-Yehuda, Israel) Emboli Protection cannula ("treatment") or a standard ("control") aortic cannula. The primary endpoint was the volume of new brain lesions measured by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI), performed preoperatively and postoperatively. Device safety was investigated by comparisons of complications rate, namely neurologic events, stroke, renal insufficiency and death. RESULTS Of 66 patients (34 in the treatment group), 51 completed the presurgery and postsurgery MRI (27 in the treatment group). The volume of new brain lesion for the treatment group was (mean±standard error of the mean) 44.00±64.00 versus 126.56±28.74 mm3 in the control group (p=0.004). Of the treatment group, 41% demonstrated new postoperative lesions versus 66% in the control group (p=0.03). The complication rate was comparable in both groups. CONCLUSIONS The CardioGard cannula is safe and efficient in use during open-heart surgery. Efficacy was demonstrated by the removal of a substantial amount of emboli, a significant reduction in the volume of new brain lesions, and the percentage of patients experiencing new brain lesions

Expert panel diagnosis demonstrated high reproducibility as reference standard in infectious diseases

Objective: If a gold standard is lacking in a diagnostic test accuracy study, expert diagnosis is frequently used as reference standard. However, interobserver and intraobserver agreements are imperfect. The aim of this study was to quantify the reproducibility of a panel diagnosis for pediatric infectious diseases. Study Design and Setting: Pediatricians from six countries adjudicated a diagnosis (i.e., bacterial infection, viral infection, or indeterminate)for febrile children. Diagnosis was reached when the majority of panel members came to the same diagnosis, leaving others inconclusive. We evaluated intraobserver and intrapanel agreement with 6 weeks and 3 years’ time intervals. We calculated the proportion of inconclusive diagnosis for a three-, five-, and seven-expert panel. Results: For both time intervals (i.e., 6 weeks and 3 years), intrapanel agreement was higher (kappa 0.88, 95%CI: 0.81-0.94 and 0.80, 95%CI: NA)compared to intraobserver agreement (kappa 0.77, 95%CI: 0.71-0.83 and 0.65, 95%CI: 0.52-0.78). After expanding the three-expert panel to five or seven experts, the proportion of inconclusive diagnoses (11%)remained the same. Conclusion: A panel consisting of three experts provides more reproducible diagnoses than an individual expert in children with lower respiratory tract infection or fever without source. Increasing the size of a panel beyond three experts has no major advantage for diagnosis reproducibility