Sepsis is one of the oldest and most elusive syndromes in medicine. Hippocrates claimed that sepsis (σήψις) was the process by which flesh rots, swamps generate foul airs, and wounds fester.¹ Galen later considered sepsis a laudable event, necessary for wound healing.² With the confirmation of germ theory by Semmelweis, Pasteur, and others, sepsis was recast as a systemic infection, often described as “blood poisoning,” and assumed to be the result of the host's invasion by pathogenic organisms that then spread in the bloodstream. However, with the advent of modern antibiotics, germ theory did not fully explain the pathogenesis of sepsis: many patients with sepsis died despite successful eradication of the inciting pathogen. Thus, researchers suggested that it was the host, not the germ, that drove the pathogenesis of sepsis.³

Introduction: Absolute lymphocytopenia has been reported as a predictor of bacteremia in medical emergencies. Likewise, the neutrophil-lymphocyte count ratio (NLCR) has been shown a simple promising method to evaluate systemic inflammation in critically ill patients. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the ability of conventional infection markers, lymphocyte count and NLCR to predict bacteremia in adult patients admitted to the Emergency Department with suspected community-acquired bacteremia. The C-reactive protein (CRP) level, white blood cell (WBC) count, neutrophil count, lymphocyte count and NLCR were compared between patients with positive blood cultures (n = 92) and age-matched and gender-matched patients with negative blood cultures (n = 92) obtained upon Emergency Department admission. Results: Significant differences between patients with positive and negative blood cultures were detected with respect to the CRP level (mean ± standard deviation 176 ± 138 mg/l vs. 116 ± 103 mg/l; P = 0.042), lymphocyte count (0.8 ± 0.5 × 10⁹/l vs. 1.2 ± 0.7 × 10⁹/l; P < 0.0001) and NLCR (20.9 ± 13.3 vs. 13.2 ± 14.1; P < 0.0001) but not regarding WBC count and neutrophil count. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were highest for the NLCR (77.2%, 63.0%, 67.6% and 73.4%, respectively). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was highest for the lymphocyte count (0.73; confidence interval: 0.66 to 0.80) and the NLCR (0.73; 0.66 to 0.81). Conclusions: In an emergency care setting, both lymphocytopenia and NLCR are better predictors of bacteremia than routine parameters like CRP level, WBC count and neutrophil count. Attention to these markers is easy to integrate in daily practice and without extra costs.

Sepsis is a systemic response to infection, and symptoms are produced by host defense systems rather than by the invading pathogens. Amongst the most prominent features of sepsis, contributing significantly to its outcome, is activation of coagulation with concurrent down-regulation of anticoagulant systems and fibrinolysis. Inflammation-induced coagulation on its turn contributes to inflammation. Another important feature of sepsis, associated with key symptoms such as hypovolemia and hypotension, is endothelial dysfunction. Under normal conditions, the endothelium provides for an anticoagulant surface, a property that is lost in sepsis. In this review, data about the interplay between inflammation and coagulation in sepsis are summarized with a special focus on the influence of the endothelium on inflammation-induced coagulation and vice versa. Possible procoagulant properties of the endothelium are described, such as expression of tissue factor (TF) and von Willebrand factor and interaction with platelets. Possible procoagulant roles of microparticles, circulating endothelial cells and endothelial apoptosis, are also discussed. Moreover, the important roles of the endothelium in down-regulating the anticoagulants TF pathway inhibitor, antithrombin, and the protein C (PC) system and inhibition of fibrinolysis are discussed. The influence of coagulation on its turn on inflammation and the endothelium is described with a special focus on protease-activated receptors (PARs). We conclude that the relationship between endothelium and coagulation in sepsis is tight and that further research is needed, for example, to better understand the role of activated PC signaling via PAR-1, the role of the endothelial PC receptor herein, and the role of the glycocalyx.