4.6 Article

Serum selenium and glutathione peroxidase-3 activity: biomarkers of systemic inflammation in the critically ill?

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 35, 期 5, 页码 882-889

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-008-1356-5

关键词

Selenium; Glutathione peroxidase; Systemic inflammatory response syndrome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To confirm the influence of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) on selenium (Se) levels and prospectively evaluate the relationship between serum Se concentration [Se], glutathione peroxidase activity [GPx-3] and injury severity in patients at the time of intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Prospective, observational study. Multidisciplinary University Hospital ICU. A total of 36 ICU patients and 23 healthy volunteer subjects (HVS). Healthy volunteer subjects were designated as controls (Group 1). ICU patients were divided into three groups: without SIRS (Group 2); with SIRS (Group 3); with SIRS and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) (Group 4). The latter groups had APACHE II scores > 15. [GPx-3] and [Se] were determined by standard methods within the first 48 h of admission to ICU. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U test were used for analysis of non-parametric continuous variables. The predictive value of [Se] and [GPx-3] for SIRS was calculated using a receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. In SIRS and MODS patients [GPx-3] and [Se] decreased significantly (P = 0.0001 and P = 0.002, respectively). After ICU admission [GPx-3] and [Se] had a predictive value for SIRS ([GPx-3] sensitivity: 90%, specificity: 86.2% (cut-off value: 0.5 U/mL); [Se]: sensitivity 90%, specificity 72.4% (cut-off value: 60 mu g/L). [Se] had predictive value for ICU mortality (P = 0.034). Systemic inflammatory response syndrome and MODS were associated with early decreases in [Se] and [GPx-3]. Low [Se] and [GPx-3] after ICU admission had a predictive value for SIRS, which may aid future selection of patients who could benefit from Se supplementation.

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