Abstract
BACKGROUND: The soluble cluster of differentiation 14 (or presepsin) is a free fragment of glycoprotein expressed on monocytes and macrophages. Although many studies have been conducted recently, the diagnostic performance of presepsin for sepsis remains debated. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature to assess the accuracy of presepsin for the diagnosis of sepsis in adult patients and compared the performance between presepsin, C-reactive protein (CRP), and procalcitonin (PCT). METHODS: A comprehensive systemic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar for studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of presepsin for sepsis until January 2017. The hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic method was used to pool individual sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: Eighteen studies, comprising 3470 patients, met our inclusion criteria. The pooled diagnosis sensitivity and specificity of presepsin for sepsis were 0.84 (95% CI 0.80-0.87) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.67-0.82), respectively. Furthermore, the pooled DOR, PLR, NLR, and AUC were 16 (95% CI 10-25), 3.4 (95% CI 2.5-4.6), 0.22 (95% CI 0.17-0.27), and 0.88 (95% CI 0.85-0.90), respectively. Significant heterogeneity was found in both sensitivities (Cochrane Q = 137.43, p < 0.001, I (2) = 87.63%) and specificities (Cochrane Q = 180.76, p < 0.001, I (2) = 90.60%). Additionally, we found no significant difference between presepsin and PCT (AUC 0.87 vs. 0.86) or CRP (AUC 0.85 vs. 0.85). However, for studies conducted in ICU, the pooled sensitivity of presepsin was found to be higher than PCT (0.88, 95% CI 0.82-0.92 vs. 0.75, 95% CI 0.68-0.81), while the pooled specificity of presepsin was lower than PCT (0.58, 95% CI 0.42-0.73 vs. 0.75, 95% CI 0.65-0.83). CONCLUSION: Based on the results of our meta-analysis, presepsin is a promising marker for diagnosis of sepsis as PCT or CRP, but its results should be interpreted more carefully and cautiously since too few studies were included and those studies had high heterogeneity between them. In addition, continuing re-evaluation during the course of sepsis is advisable.