4.2 Article

Dynamic Detection of Monocyte Subsets in Peripheral Blood of Patients with Acute Hypertriglyceridemic Pancreatitis

期刊

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2019/5705782

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China for Young Scholars [81600500]
  2. Clinical Research Cultivating Program of Shanghai Hospital Development Center [SHDC12017X09]
  3. Shanghai General Hospital Clinical Research Innovation Team Project [CTCCR-2016B03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim. Monocytes play an important role in acute pancreatitis (AP). Hypertriglyceridemic pancreatitis (HTGP) is always more severe than normal lipid-AP, whether the mechanism of aggravation involves monocyte subsets remains unknown though. The present study was aimed to analyze changes of peripheral blood M1 and M2 monocytes in HTGP patients. Methods. A total of 90 subjects were enrolled, among which 16 diagnosed with HTGP, 34 with acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP), 20 with hypertriglyceridemia (HTG), and 20 healthy controls (HC). Peripheral blood CD14+CD86+ M1 and CD14+CD206+ M2 monocytes were examined by flow cytometry on days 1, 3, and 7 after admission. Results. We found a marked increase in total and M1 monocyte count in AP patients (P<0.05). In HTGP, the percentage of M1 monocytes in white blood cells was significantly higher on days 1, 3, and 7, while M2 monocyte percentage was decreased on day 3, compared with ABP (P<0.05). In mild HTGP, M1 monocyte count and percentage gradually decreased, while M2 monocyte percentage gradually increased from day 1 to 7. In severe HTGP, M1 monocyte count and percentage rose to the highest point while M2 were the lowest on day 3. Additionally, the level of M1 monocytes showed a positive correlation with plasma triglyceride and Ranson score of HTGP patients. Conclusions. Peripheral blood M1 and M2 monocytes showed different dynamic changes in mild and severe HTGP. A more dominant role of CD14+CD86+ M1 monocytes may be involved in the pathogenesis of HTGP.

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