The impact of various platelet indices as prognostic markers of septic shock

PLoS One. 2014 Aug 13;9(8):e103761. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103761. eCollection 2014.

Abstract

Introduction: Platelet indices, including mean platelet volume (MPV), are readily available blood tests, although their prognostic value in patients with septic shock has not been fully explored. Current evidence has found contradictory results. This study aims to explore the behavior of platelet indices in septic shock and their clinical prognostic value.

Methods: Charts of septic shock patients from January to December 2012 in a tertiary medical center in Northern China were reviewed retrospectively. Platelet indices were recorded during the first five consecutive days after admission, as well as the penultimate and the last day of hospital stay. The data were compared between surviving and non-surviving patients.

Results: A total of 124 septic shock patients were enrolled. Thirty-six of the patients survived and 88 of them expired. MPV in the non-survivor group was higher than that of the survivor group, especially on the last day. PDW and PLCR showed increased trends, while PCT and PLT decreased in the non-survivor group. Among the PLT indices, MPV had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.81) with a precision rate of 75.6% at a cut-off of 10.5.Compared with other more usual septic shock prognostic markers, MPV is second only to lactate for the highest area under the curve.

Conclusion: A statistically significant difference was seen between survivors and non-survivors for platelet indices which make them easily available and useful prognostic markers for patients in septic shock.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • China
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Platelet Function Tests
  • Prognosis
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Shock, Septic / blood
  • Shock, Septic / diagnosis*

Grants and funding

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81370364), Innovative investigators project grant from the Health Bureau of Henan Province, Program Grant for Science & Technology Innovation Talents in Universities of Henan Province (2012HASTIT001), Henan provincial science and technology achievement transformation project (122102310581), Henan province of medical scientific research project (201203027), China. This funding was used to support collection, analysis, and interpretation of data our study. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.