4.6 Article

COMPLEMENT ACTIVATION IN HUMAN SEPSIS IS RELATED TO SEPSIS-INDUCED DISSEMINATED INTRAVASCULAR COAGULATION

期刊

SHOCK
卷 54, 期 2, 页码 198-204

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SHK.0000000000001504

关键词

Fibrin degradation product; prothrombin time; septic shock; soluble C5b-9 complex; thrombocytopenia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: In human sepsis, little is known about the relationships between complement activation and the clinical characteristics of sepsis, including disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), interventions, and prognosis. Patients and Methods: Adult patients with sepsis admitted from November 2016 to December 2018 were included. We used the plasma levels of soluble C5b-9 (SC5b-9) as a marker of complement activation. We compared the clinical characteristics and complement components between patients with and without DIC. We also compared the clinical characteristics and each DIC parameter across quartile groups for the SC5b-9 value. Results: Forty-nine sepsis patients were eligible. Thirty-four patients developed DIC, and eight patients died. The median (interquartile range) SC5b-9 value was 342 (261-501) ng/mL. Compared with patients without DIC, patients with DIC showed lower C3 levels (mean, 95.7 vs. 70.4 mg/dL, P<0.01) and higher SC5b-9 levels (median, 287 vs. 400 ng/mL, P = 0.01). Patients were stratified by SC5b-9 quartile (ng/mL: low: < 260, moderate: 260-342, high: 343-501, highest: > 501). The mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score varied across these groups (P = 0.02). In the high and highest groups, many more patients received vasopressors and developed DIC. In the highest group, the coagulation parameters were severe, and thrombocytopenia was prolonged. In-hospital mortality tended to be high (33%) in the highest group. Conclusions: The degree of complement activation is related to DIC, severity, intensive interventions, and mortality. Further studies are needed to confirm the usefulness of SC5b-9 for stratifying sepsis 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

4.6
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