Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Department of Immunology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Int Wound J. 2024 Mar;21(3):e14770. doi: 10.1111/iwj.14770.
The objective of this paper was to investigate erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and c-reactive protein (CRP) in diagnosing pedal osteomyelitis (OM) in patients with and without diabetes, and with and without severe renal impairment (SRI). This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with moderate and severe foot infections. We evaluated three groups: Subjects without diabetes (NDM), subjects with diabetes and without severe renal insufficiency (DM-NSRI), and patients with diabetes and SRI (DM-SRI). SRI was defined as eGFR <30. We evaluated area under the curve (AUC), cutoff point, sensitivity and specificity to characterize the accuracy of ESR and CRP to diagnose OM. A total of 408 patients were included in the analysis. ROC analysis in the NDM group revealed the AUC for ESR was 0.62, with a cutoff value of 46 mm/h (sensitivity, 49.0%; specificity, 76.0%). DM-NSRI subjects showed the AUC for ESR was 0.70 with the cutoff value of 61 mm/h (sensitivity, 68.9%; specificity 61.8%). In DM-SRI, the AUC for ESR was 0.67, with a cutoff value of 119 mm/h (sensitivity, 46.4%; specificity, 82.40%). In the NDM group, the AUC for CRP was 0.55, with a cutoff value of 6.4 mg/dL (sensitivity, 31.3%; specificity, 84.0%). For DM-NSRI, the AUC for CRP was 0.70, with a cutoff value of 8 mg/dL (sensitivity, 49.2%; specificity, 80.6%). In DM-SRI, the AUC for CRP was 0.62, with a cutoff value of 7 mg/dL (sensitivity, 57.1%; specificity, 67.7%). While CRP demonstrated relatively consistent utility, ESR's diagnostic cutoff points diverged significantly. These results highlight the necessity of considering patient-specific factors when interpreting ESR results in the context of OM diagnosis.
本文旨在探讨红细胞沉降率(ESR)和 C 反应蛋白(CRP)在诊断糖尿病合并或不合并严重肾功能不全(SRI)患者足部骨髓炎(OM)中的作用。本研究为回顾性队列研究,纳入中重度足部感染患者。我们评估了三组人群:无糖尿病患者(NDM)、无严重肾功能不全的糖尿病患者(DM-NSRI)和合并 SRI 的糖尿病患者(DM-SRI)。SRI 定义为 eGFR<30。我们评估了曲线下面积(AUC)、截断值、敏感性和特异性,以评估 ESR 和 CRP 诊断 OM 的准确性。共纳入 408 例患者进行分析。在 NDM 组中,ESR 的 AUC 为 0.62,截断值为 46mm/h(敏感性为 49.0%,特异性为 76.0%)。DM-NSRI 组中,ESR 的 AUC 为 0.70,截断值为 61mm/h(敏感性为 68.9%,特异性为 61.8%)。在 DM-SRI 组中,ESR 的 AUC 为 0.67,截断值为 119mm/h(敏感性为 46.4%,特异性为 82.4%)。在 NDM 组中,CRP 的 AUC 为 0.55,截断值为 6.4mg/dL(敏感性为 31.3%,特异性为 84.0%)。在 DM-NSRI 组中,CRP 的 AUC 为 0.70,截断值为 8mg/dL(敏感性为 49.2%,特异性为 80.6%)。在 DM-SRI 组中,CRP 的 AUC 为 0.62,截断值为 7mg/dL(敏感性为 57.1%,特异性为 67.7%)。虽然 CRP 的诊断效能相对一致,但 ESR 的诊断截断值存在显著差异。这些结果强调了在 OM 诊断中,解释 ESR 结果时需要考虑患者的具体因素。