4.2 Article

Analysis of peripheral blood lymphocyte subsets and prognosis in patients with septic shock

Journal

MICROBIOLOGY AND IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 55, Issue 10, Pages 736-742

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1348-0421.2011.00373.x

Keywords

lymphocyte subsets; septic shock; sepsis-related organ failure assessment score

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of the study is to study the relationship between peripheral blood lymphocyte subset proportion and prognosis in patients with septic shock. Fifty-two patients with septic shock, admitted to the intensive care unit between March 2007 and December 2010, were enrolled in this study. Peripheral blood lymphocyte subset proportions were measured using flow cytometry. The percentage of CD3(+)CD4(+) T lymphocytes and CD19(+) lymphocytes, CD4(+)/CD8(+) T cell ratio were substantially lower in patients with septic shock compared to the control group (P < 0.01). The percentage of CD3(+)CD8(+) T lymphocytes did not differ significantly between the two groups (P > 0.05). The percentage of CD16(+)CD56(+) lymphocytes was higher in patients with septic shock than in the control group (P < 0.01). Compared with the survivor group, the percentage of CD3(+)CD4(+) T lymphocytes and CD19(+) lymphocytes, CD4(+)/CD8(+) T cell ratio were clearly lower in the non-survivor group (P < 0.01). There was no difference in the percentage of CD3(+)CD8(+) T lymphocytes between the non-survivor and survivor groups (P > 0.05). The percentage of CD16(+)CD56(+) lymphocytes was higher in the non-survivor group than in the survivor group (P < 0.05). The total maximum SOFA score and the delta SOFA score were much higher in the non-survivor group than in the survivor group (P < 0.01). Immune imbalance occurs in patients with septic shock. Peripheral blood lymphocyte subset proportion and SOFA scores can be used to assess the treatment and prognosis of septic shock.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available