ABSTRACT
Fundamento y objetivo: Valorar la utilidad de una la escala de riesgo basada en la procalcitonina sérica (PCT) comparada con la escala Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis (LRINEC) en la discriminación precoz entre la fascitis necrosante (FN) y la celulitis en las extremidades. Material y método: Estudio retrospectivo de pacientes consecutivos con diagnóstico confirmado de FN en una extremidad (n=11). Ese grupo de estudio fue comparado con 23 pacientes consecutivos con diagnóstico de celulitis severa en miembros en el mismo periodo. Se analizaron los datos clínicos y los parámetros rutinarios de laboratorio, siendo la variable principal el nivel sérico de PCT al ingreso. La capacidad de discriminación para el diagnóstico de FN de los dos métodos -nivel de PCT y puntuación de la escala LRINEC- fue evaluada mediante la curva COR y determinada por el cálculo del área bajo la curva (ABC). Resultados: El ABC fue significativamente mayor con la medición de la PCT, tanto como variable continua como cuando el riesgo era categorizado. El punto de corte para el nivel de PCT con mayor ABC bajo la curva fue a partir de 0,87ng/ml (sensibilidad 90,9%; especificidad 82,6%), mientras que alcanzaba una puntuación de 5 en la escala LRINEC (sensibilidad 72,7%; especificidad 82,6%). Conclusión: La medición de la PCT fue un método más efectivo que la escala LRINEC para discriminar precozmente entre FN y celulitis de las extremidades. Un nivel bajo de PCT, asociado al cuadro clínico y a la exploración física, es de especial utilidad para descartar el diagnóstico precoz de FN
Background and objective: To assess the usefulness of a risk scale based on serum procalcitonin (PCT) compared to the Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotising Fasciitis (LRINEC) scale in the early discrimination between necrotising fasciitis (NF) and cellulitis of the extremities. Materials and methods: Retrospective study of consecutive patients with confirmed diagnosis of NF in one limb (n=11). This study group was compared with 23 consecutive patients with a diagnosis of severe limbs cellulitis during the same period. The clinical data and laboratory parameters were analysed, the main variable was the serum level of PCT upon admission. The capacity for NF diagnosis of the two methods, PCT level and LRINEC scale score, were evaluated by ROC curve and determined by the calculation of the area under the curve (AUC). Results: The AUC was significantly higher with PCT measurement, both as a continuous variable and when the risk was categorised. The cut-off point for the PCT level with the highest AUC under the curve was from 0.87ng/ml (sensitivity 90.9%, specificity 82.6%), whereas it was a score of 5 on the LRINEC scale (sensitivity 72.7%, specificity 82.6%). Conclusion: PCT measurement was a more effective method than the LRINEC score for early discrimination between NF and cellulitis of the extremities. A low level of PCT, associated with the patient's clinical status and physical examination is especially useful to rule out an early diagnosis of NF
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Adult , Middle Aged , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Procalcitonin/blood , Fasciitis, Necrotizing/diagnosis , Cellulite/diagnosis , Extremities/pathology , Severity of Illness Index , Case-Control Studies , Retrospective Studies , Area Under Curve , Early DiagnosisABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To assess the usefulness of a risk scale based on serum procalcitonin (PCT) compared to the Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotising Fasciitis (LRINEC) scale in the early discrimination between necrotising fasciitis (NF) and cellulitis of the extremities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective study of consecutive patients with confirmed diagnosis of NF in one limb (n=11). This study group was compared with 23 consecutive patients with a diagnosis of severe limbs cellulitis during the same period. The clinical data and laboratory parameters were analysed, the main variable was the serum level of PCT upon admission. The capacity for NF diagnosis of the two methods, PCT level and LRINEC scale score, were evaluated by ROC curve and determined by the calculation of the area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: The AUC was significantly higher with PCT measurement, both as a continuous variable and when the risk was categorised. The cut-off point for the PCT level with the highest AUC under the curve was from 0.87ng/ml (sensitivity 90.9%, specificity 82.6%), whereas it was a score of 5 on the LRINEC scale (sensitivity 72.7%, specificity 82.6%). CONCLUSION: PCT measurement was a more effective method than the LRINEC score for early discrimination between NF and cellulitis of the extremities. A low level of PCT, associated with the patient's clinical status and physical examination is especially useful to rule out an early diagnosis of NF.
