4.8 Article

Hemoglobin-driven pathophysiology is an in vivo consequence of the red blood cell storage lesion that can be attenuated in guinea pigs by haptoglobin therapy

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION
卷 122, 期 4, 页码 1444-1458

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL INVESTIGATION INC
DOI: 10.1172/JCI59770

关键词

-

资金

  1. FDA
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation [31003A_138500]
  3. University of Zurich
  4. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [31003A_138500] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Massive transfusion of blood can lead to clinical complications, including multiorgan dysfunction and even death. Such severe clinical outcomes have been associated with longer red blood cell (rbc) storage times. Collectively referred to as the rbc storage lesion, rbc storage results in multiple biochemical changes that impact intracellular processes as well as membrane and cytoskeletal properties, resulting in cellular injury in vitro. However, how the rbc storage lesion triggers pathophysiology in vivo remains poorly defined. In this study, we developed a guinea pig transfusion model with blood stored under standard blood banking conditions for 2 (new), 21 (intermediate), or 28 days (old blood). Transfusion with old but not new blood led to intravascular hemolysis, acute hypertension, vascular injury, and kidney dysfunction associated with pathophysiology driven by hemoglobin (Hb). These adverse effects were dramatically attenuated when the high-affinity Hb scavenger haptoglobin (Hp) was administered at the time of transfusion with old blood. Pathologies observed after transfusion with old blood, together with the favorable response to Hp supplementation, allowed us to define the in vivo consequences of the rbc storage lesion as storage-related posttransfusion hemolysis producing Hb-driven pathophysiology. Hb sequestration by Hp might therefore be a therapeutic modality for enhancing transfusion safety in severely ill or massively transfused patients.

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

4.8
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