4.2 Article

Decreased Serum Monocyte Chemoattractant Protein-1 (MCP-1) Expression in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

期刊

MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR
卷 25, 期 -, 页码 1822-1827

出版社

INT SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION, INC
DOI: 10.12659/MSM.911897

关键词

Apolipoproteins; Cholesterol; Triglycerides

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the expression of monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1) and its correlation with the blood lipid level in upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). Material/Methods: A total of 118 patients with UGIB were enrolled in this study. The relevant indicators for blood lipid levels were detected using a biochemical analyzer. MCP-1 levels in the serum of patients was determined through enzyme- linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) 17.0 software was used for the statistical analysis. Two-sample t-test was used for the intergroup comparison. The significant indicators were included in a multivariate logistic regression model to analyze the prognostic factors of UGIB. Pearson analysis was applied to the correlation analysis. P<0.05 suggested that the difference was statistically significant. Results: MCP-1 expression levels in patients with UGIB were significantly lower than that in the control group and were even further reduced in patients with massive hemorrhage. The levels of total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) in the serum of patients with UGIB were decreased compared with those in the control group and these indicators of the blood lipid level were decreased much more in patients with massive hemorrhage. The MCP-1 expression was positively correlated with the levels of TC, TG, and LDL in serum. MCP-1 and TC were the prognostic influencing factors of UGIB. Conclusions: Serum MCP-1 expression was significantly decreased in patients with UGIB and correlated with blood lipid level, suggesting it might be a prognostic factor for UGB.

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

4.2
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