4.5 Article

Serum hepcidin concentrations correlate with serum iron level and outcome in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage

期刊

NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 36, 期 10, 页码 1843-1849

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s10072-015-2266-2

关键词

Hepcidin; Intracerebral hemorrhage; Inflammation; Iron; Outcome

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81271283, 81471191]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2014CB541605]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Iron plays a detrimental role in the intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH)-induced brain damage, while hepcidin is the most important iron-regulated hormone. Here, we investigate the association between serum hepcidin and serum iron, outcome in patients with ICH. Serum samples of 81 cases with ICH were obtained on consecutive days to detect the levels of hepcidin, iron, interleukin-6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha). The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (NIHSS) was measured at admission and on days 7 and 30, and the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score was evaluated at 3 months after ICH. Additionally, the correlations of serum hepcidin with serum iron and the mRS score were analyzed by a generalized linear model. Higher serum hepcidin levels were detected in patients with poor outcomes (P < 0.001), and the mRS score increased by a mean of 1.135 points (95 % CI 1.021-1.247, P < 0.001) for every serum hepcidin quartile after adjusting for other prognostic variables. Pearson correlation analysis showed that serum hepcidin was negatively correlated with serum iron (r = -0.5301, P < 0.001), and a significantly lower concentration of serum iron was found in patients with poor outcomes (P = 0.007). Additionally, serum hepcidin was independently correlated with mRS scores of ICH patients (OR 1.115, 95 % CI 0.995-1.249, P = 0.021). Our results suggest that serum hepcidin is closely related to the outcome of patients with ICH and may be a biological marker for outcome prediction.

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

4.5
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