4.6 Article

Serum levels of osteopontin are increased in SIRS and sepsis

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 34, 期 12, 页码 2176-2184

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-008-1268-4

关键词

Immunity; Inflammation; Cytokine; Sepsis

资金

  1. Telethon (Rome) [E1170]
  2. AIRC (Milan)
  3. PRIN Project (MIUR, Rome)
  4. Compagnia di San Paolo (Turin)
  5. Regione Piemonte [FISM 2005/R/10]
  6. Ricerca Corrente Ministeriale (Rome)
  7. Fondazione CARIPLO (Milan)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In sepsis, dysregulation of the immune response leads to rapid multiorgan failure and death. Accurate and timely diagnosis is lifesaving and should discriminate sepsis from the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) caused by non-infectious agents. Osteopontin acts as an extracellular matrix component or a soluble cytokine in inflamed tissues. Its exact role in immune response and sepsis remains to be elucidated. Therefore, we investigated the role of osteopontin in SIRS and sepsis. Prospective, observational study. Intensive care unit of a university hospital. Fifty-six patients with SIRS or sepsis and 56 healthy subjects were enrolled. We analyzed the serum levels of osteopontin and TH1-TH2 cytokines and investigated the role of osteopontin on interleukin 6 secretion by monocytes. Serum osteopontin levels were strikingly higher in patients than in controls and in sepsis than in SIRS, and decreased during the resolution of both the disorders. Receiver operating characteristic curves showed that osteopontin levels have discriminative power between SIRS and sepsis with an area under the curve of 0.796. Osteopontin levels directly correlated with those of interleukin 6 and in vitro, recombinant osteopontin increased interleukin 6 secretion by monocytes in both the absence and presence of high doses of lipopolysaccharide. These data suggest that osteopontin might be a mediator involved in the pathogenesis of SIRS and sepsis, possibly by supporting interleukin 6 secretion. 45. SIRS/Sepsis: clinical studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据