4.7 Article

Erythropoietin and renin as biological markers in critically ill patients

Journal

CRITICAL CARE
Volume 8, Issue 5, Pages R328-R335

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/cc2902

Keywords

biological markers; critically ill patients; erythropoietin; renin; septic shock

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction During sepsis the endocrine, immune and nervous systems elaborate a multitude of biological responses. Little is known regarding the mechanisms responsible for the final circulating erythropoietin (EPO) and renin levels in septic shock. The aim of the present study was to assess the role of EPO and renin as biological markers in patients with septic shock. Methods A total of 44 critically ill patients with septic shock were evaluated. Results Nonsurvivors had significantly higher serum EPO levels than did survivors on admission ( median [ minimum - maximum]; 61 [ 10 - 602] versus 20 [ 5 - 369]). A negative relationship between serum EPO and blood haemoglobin concentrations was observed in the survivor group ( r = - 0.61; P < 0.001). In contrast, in the nonsurvivors the serum EPO concentration was independent of the blood haemoglobin concentration. Furthermore, we observed significant relationships between EPO concentration and lactate ( r = 0.5; P < 0.001), arterial oxygen tension/fractional inspired oxygen ratio ( r = - 0.41; P < 0.005), arterial pH ( r = - 0.58; P < 0.001) and renin concentration ( r = 0.42; P < 0.005). With regard to renin concentration, significant correlations with lactate ( r = 0.52; P < 0.001) and arterial pH ( r = - 0.33; P < 0.05) were observed. Conclusion Our findings show that EPO and renin concentrations increased in patients admitted to the intensive care unit with septic shock. Renin may be a significant mediator of EPO upregulation in patients with septic shock. Further studies regarding the regulation of EPO expression are clearly warranted.

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