4.7 Article

Clinical and biological markers for predicting ARDS and outcome in septic patients

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-02100-w

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Instituto de Salud Carlos III [PI16/00049] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Fundación DISA [015/2017] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found that certain biomarkers can help predict the risk of septic patients developing acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and can improve the accuracy of clinical markers in predicting ARDS. Panels including indicators such as RAGE, CXCL16, and Ang-2 show good performance in predicting ARDS. The presence of ARDS, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, and pulmonary/extrapulmonary origin of sepsis are factors related to ICU death in septic patients.
Sepsis is a common cause of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) associated with a high mortality. A panel of biomarkers (BMs) to identify septic patients at risk for developing ARDS, or at high risk of death, would be of interest for selecting patients for therapeutic trials, which could improve ARDS diagnosis and treatment, and survival chances in sepsis and ARDS. We measured nine protein BMs by ELISA in serum from 232 adult septic patients at diagnosis (152 required invasive mechanical ventilation and 72 had ARDS). A panel including the BMs RAGE, CXCL16 and Ang-2, plus PaO2/FiO(2), was good in predicting ARDS (area under the curve = 0.88 in total septic patients). Best performing panels for ICU death are related to the presence of ARDS, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, and pulmonary/extrapulmonary origin of sepsis. In all cases, the use of BMs improved the prediction by clinical markers. Our study confirms the relevance of RAGE, Ang-2, IL-1RA and SP-D, and is novel supporting the inclusion of CXCL16, in BMs panels for predicting ARDS diagnosis and ARDS and sepsis outcome.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available