4.7 Article

GFAP and S100B are biomarkers of traumatic brain injury An observational cohort study

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 75, 期 20, 页码 1786-1793

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181fd62d2

关键词

-

资金

  1. Dutch Brain Foundation (Hersenstichting)
  2. Trauma Centrum Oost

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Biomarker levels in blood after traumatic brain injury (TBI) may offer diagnostic and prognostic tools in addition to clinical indices. This study aims to validate glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and S100B concentrations in blood as outcome predictors of TBI using cutoff levels of 1.5 mu g/L for GFAP and 1.13 mu g/L for S100B from a previous study. Methods: In 79 patients with TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale score [GCS] <12), serum, taken at hospital admission, was analyzed for GFAP and S100B. Data collected included injury mechanism, age, gender, mass lesion on CT, GCS, pupillary reactions, Injury Severity Score (ISS), presence of hypoxia, and hypotension. Outcome was assessed, using the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (dichotomized in death vs alive and unfavorable vs favorable), 6 months post injury. Results: In patients who died compared to alive patients, median serum levels were increased: GFAP 33.4-fold and S100B 2.1-fold. In unfavorable compared to favorable outcome, GFAP was increased 19.8-fold and S100B 2.1-fold. Univariate logistic regression analysis revealed that mass lesion, GFAP, absent pupils, age, and ISS, but not GCS, hypotension, or hypoxia, predicted death and unfavorable outcome. Multivariable analysis showed that models containing mass lesion, pupils, GFAP, and S100B were the strongest in predicting death and unfavorable outcome. S100B was the strongest single predictor of unfavorable outcome with 100% discrimination. Conclusion: This study confirms that GFAP and S100B levels in serum are adjuncts to the assessment of brain damage after TBI and may enhance prognostication when combined with clinical variables. Neurology (R) 2010;75:1786-1793

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

4.7
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