背景:对烧伤的炎症反应可导致器官功能障碍,最终导致死亡率和发病率增加。这项荟萃分析是为了确定炎症生物标志物的疗效,包括中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比率(NLR),血小板与淋巴细胞比率(PLR),降钙素原(PCT),和C反应蛋白(CRP)作为烧伤患者死亡率的预测工具。
方法:根据系统评价和荟萃分析(PRISMA)的首选报告项目指南,对幸存者和非幸存者的生物标志物水平进行合并。以电子方式搜索了三个主要数据库:PubMed,WebofScience,还有Scopus,2022年12月8日采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华质量评价量表(NOS)对纳入研究的方法学质量进行评价和评分。使用具有95%置信区间(CI)的标准平均差(SMD)。
结果:我们的系统评价和荟萃分析包括24项研究,(总共3636名烧伤患者),其中有2878人幸存。我们发现死亡烧伤患者的NLR水平升高(SMD=0.60,95%CI;0.19-1.00,P<0.001),CRP(SMD=0.80,95%CI;0.02-1.58,P=0.04),和PCT(SMD=0.85,95%CI;0.45-1.24,P<0.001),与幸存者相比。然而,我们发现烧伤患者的PLR与死亡率无相关性(SMD=0.00,95%CI;-0.14~0.15,P<0.001).此外,非存活者CRP显著高于非存活者(SMD=0.80,95%CI;0.02-1.58,P=0.04)。关于PCT也发现了类似的结果(SMD=0.85,95%CI;0.45-1.24,P<0.001)。当我们分析PCT数据时,在最初的24-48小时内收集,我们发现类似的结果;非幸存者在伤后即刻的PCT水平显著较高(SMD=0.67,95%CI;0.31-1.02,P<0.001).关于NLR在烧伤中的作用的研究没有发表偏倚(Egger检验P=0.91)。NLR(13)的基础截止值,CRP(71),PCT(1.77)的敏感度为69.2%,100%,和93.33%,和76%的特异性,72.22%,和72.22%。
结论:PCT是脓毒症的标志物,因此,其升高的水平可能与非幸存者中脓毒症的发生率和严重程度更高相关.此外,NLR和CRP是有前途的生物标志物,可用于预测和指导临床环境中烧伤死亡的预防。
BACKGROUND: The inflammatory response to burn injuries can lead to organ dysfunction that ultimately results in increased mortality and morbidity. This meta-analysis was conducted to determine the efficacy of inflammatory biomarkers, including the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR), procalcitonin (PCT), and C-reactive protein (CRP) as predictive tools of mortality among burn patients.
METHODS: The biomarker levels of survivors and non-survivors were consolidated according to guidelines for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Three main databases were searched electronically: PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus, on December 8, 2022. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate and score the methodological quality of the included studies. The standard mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was utilized.
RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were included in our systematic
review and meta-analysis, (3636 total burn patients), of whom 2878 survived. We found that deceased burn patients had elevated levels of NLR (SMD = 0.60, 95% CI; 0.19-1.00, P < 0.001), CRP (SMD = 0.80, 95% CI; 0.02-1.58, P = 0.04), and PCT (SMD = 0.85, 95% CI; 0.45-1.24, P < 0.001), compared to survivors. However, we found no association between PLR and mortality among burn patients (SMD = 0.00, 95% CI; -0.14-0.15, P < 0.001). In addition, CRP was significantly higher in non-survivors (SMD = 0.80, 95% CI; 0.02-1.58, P =0.04). Similar results were also found about PCT (SMD = 0.85, 95% CI; 0.45-1.24, P < 0.001). When we analyzed the PCT data, collected in the first 24-48 hours, we found similar results; the PCT level was significantly higher in non-survivors in the immediate postinjury-period (SMD = 0.67, 95% CI; 0.31-1.02, P < 0.001). There was no publication bias among studies on the role of NLR in burn (Egger\'s test P = 0.91). The based cut-off values for NLR (13), CRP (71), and PCT (1.77) yielded sensitivities of 69.2%, 100%, and 93.33%, and specificities of 76%, 72.22%, and 72.22% respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: PCT is a marker of sepsis, therefore its elevated level is presumably associated with a higher incidence and severity of sepsis among non-survivors. In addition, NLR and CRP are promising biomarkers for predicting and guiding prevention against burn deaths in clinical settings.